Cardiology

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

You’re invited to a dinner party but you struggle to make small talk. Do not worry; you can use your knowledge of study design and epidemiology to impress people with your savoir faire regarding popular food myths that will invariably crop up over cocktails. Because all journalism has been reduced to listicles, here are four ways to seem clever at dinner parties.

1. The Predinner Cocktails: A Lesson in Reverse Causation

Wine connoisseurs sniff, swirl, and gently swish the wine in their mouths before spitting out and cleansing their palates to better appreciate the subtlety of each vintage. If you’re not an oenophile, no matter. Whenever somebody claims that moderate amounts of alcohol are good for your heart, this is your moment to pounce. Interject yourself in the conversation and tell everybody about reverse causation.

Reverse causation, also known as protopathic bias, involves misinterpreting the directionality of an association. You assume that X leads to Y, when in fact Y leads to X. Temporal paradoxes are useful plot devices in science fiction movies, but they have no place in medical research. In our bland world, cause must precede effect. As such, smoking leads to lung cancer; lung cancer doesn’t make you smoke more. 

But with alcohol, directionality is less obvious. Many studies of alcohol and cardiovascular disease have demonstrated a U-shaped association, with risk being lowest among those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (usually one to two drinks per day) and higher in those who drink more and also those who drink very little.

But one must ask why some people drink little or no alcohol. There is an important difference between former drinkers and never drinkers. Former drinkers cut back for a reason. More likely than not, the reason for this newfound sobriety was medical. A new cancer diagnosis, the emergence of atrial fibrillation, the development of diabetes, or rising blood pressure are all good reasons to reduce or eliminate alcohol. A cross-sectional study will fail to capture that alcohol consumption changes over time — people who now don’t drink may have imbibed alcohol in years past. It was not abstinence that led to an increased risk for heart disease; it was the increased risk for heart disease that led to abstinence.

You see the same phenomenon with the so-called obesity paradox. The idea that being a little overweight is good for you may appeal when you no longer fit into last year’s pants. But people who are underweight are so for a reason. Malnutrition, cachexia from cancer, or some other cause is almost certainly driving up the risk at the left-hand side of the U-shaped curve that makes the middle part seem better than it actually is.

Food consumption changes over time. A cross-sectional survey at one point in time cannot accurately capture past habits and distant exposures, especially for diseases such as heart disease and cancer that develop slowly over time. Studies on alcohol that try to overcome these shortcomings by eliminating former drinkers, or by using Mendelian randomization to better account for past exposure, do not show a cardiovascular benefit for moderate red wine drinking.

 

2. The Hors D’oeuvres — The Importance of RCTs

Now that you have made yourself the center of attention, it is time to cement your newfound reputation as a font of scientific knowledge. Most self-respecting hosts will serve smoked salmon as an amuse-bouche before the main meal. When someone mentions the health benefits of fish oils, you should take the opportunity to teach them about confounding.

Fish, especially cold-water fish from northern climates, have relatively high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Despite the plethora of observational studies suggesting a cardiovascular benefit, it’s now relatively clear that fish oil or omega-3 supplements have no medical benefit.

This will probably come as a shock to the worried well, but many studies, including VITAL and ASCEND, have demonstrated no cardiovascular or cancer benefit to supplementation with omega-3s. The reason is straightforward and explains why hormone replacement therapy, vitamin D, and myriad purported game-changers never panned out. Confounding is hard to overcome in observational research.

Prior to the publication of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Study, hormone replacement therapy was routinely prescribed to postmenopausal women because numerous observational studies suggested a cardiovascular benefit. But with the publication of the WHI study, it became clear that much of that “benefit” was due to confounding. The women choosing to take hormones were more health conscious at baseline and healthier overall. 

A similar phenomenon occurred during COVID. Patients with low serum vitamin D levels had worse outcomes, prompting many to suggest vitamin D supplementation as a possible treatment. Trials did not support the intervention because we’d overlooked the obvious. People with vitamin D deficiency have underlying health problems that contribute to the vitamin D deficiency. They are probably older, frailer, possibly with a poorer diet. No amount of statistical adjustment can account for all those differences, and some degree of residual confounding will always persist.

The only way to overcome confounding is with randomization. When patients are randomly assigned to one group or another, their baseline differences largely balance out if the randomization was performed properly and the groups were large enough. There is a role for observational research, such as in situations where ethics, cost, and practicality do not allow for a randomized controlled trial. But randomized controlled trials have largely put to rest the purported health benefits of over-the-counter fish oils, omega-3s, and vitamin D.

 

3. The Main Course — Absolute vs Relative Risk

When you get to the main course, all eyes will now be on you. You will almost certainly be called upon to pronounce on the harms or benefits of red meat consumption. Begin by regaling your guests with a little trivia. Ask them if they know the definition of red meat and white meat. When someone says pork is white meat, you can reveal that “pork, the other white meat,” was a marketing slogan with no scientific underpinning. Now that everyone is lulled into a stupefied silence, tell them that red meat comes from mammals and white meat comes from birds. As they process this revelation, you can now launch into the deeply mathematical concept of absolute vs relative risk.

Many etiquette books will caution against bringing up math at a dinner party. These books are wrong. Everyone finds math interesting if they are primed properly. For example, you can point to a study claiming that berries reduce cardiovascular risk in women. Even if true — and there is reason to be cautious, given the observational nature of the research — we need to understand what the authors meant by a 32% risk reduction. (Side note: It was a reduction in hazard, with a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.96), but we won’t dwell on the difference between hazard ratios and risk ratios right now.)

This relative risk reduction has to be interpreted carefully. The authors divided the population into quintiles based on their consumption of anthocyanins (the antioxidant in blueberries and strawberries) and compared the bottom fifth (average consumption, 2.5 mg/d) with the top fifth (average consumption, 25 mg/d). The bottom quintile had 126 myocardial infarctions (MIs) over 324,793 patient-years compared with 59 MIs over 332,143 patient-years. Some quick math shows an approximate reduction from 39 to 18 MIs per 100,000 patient-years. Or to put it another way, you must get 4762 women to increase their berry consumption 10-fold for 1 year to prevent one heart attack. Feel free to show people how you calculated this number. They will be impressed by your head for numbers. It is nothing more than 39 minus 18, divided by 100,000, to get the absolute risk reduction. Take the reciprocal of this (ie, 1 divided by this number) to get the number needed to treat.

Describing risks in absolute terms or using number needed to treat (or harm) can help conceptualize statistics that are sometimes hard to wrap your head around.

 

4. Dessert — Funding

By the time the coffee is served, everyone will be hanging on to your every word. This is as it should be, and you should not be afraid of your newfound power and influence. 

Dessert will probably involve some form of chocolate, possibly in cake format. (Anyone who serves fruit as dessert is not someone you should associate with.) Take the opportunity to tell your follow diners that chocolate is not actually good for you and will not boost brain performance.

The health benefits of chocolate are often repeated but rarely scrutinized. In fact, much of the scientific research purporting to show that chocolate is good for you did not actually study chocolate. It usually involved a cocoa bean extract because the chocolate manufacturing process destroys the supposedly health-promoting antioxidants in the cocoa bean. It is true that dark chocolate has more antioxidants than milk chocolate, and that the addition of milk to chocolate further inactivates the potentially healthy antioxidants. But the amount of sugar and fat that has to be added to chocolate to make it palatable precludes any serious consideration about health benefits. Dark chocolate may have less fat and sugar than milk chocolate, but it still has a lot.

But even the cocoa bean extract doesn’t seem to do much for your heart or your brain. The long-awaited COSMOS study was published with surprisingly little fanfare. The largest randomized controlled trial of chocolate (or rather cocoa bean extract) was supposed to settle the issue definitively.

COSMOS showed no cardiovascular or neurocognitive benefit to the cocoa bean extract. But the health halo of chocolate continues to be bolstered by many studies funded by chocolate manufacturers. 

We are appropriately critical of the pharmaceutical industry’s involvement in drug research. However, we should not forget that any private entity is prone to the same self-interest regardless of its product’s tastiness. How many of you knew that there was an avocado lobby funding research? No matter how many industry-funded observational studies using surrogate endpoints are out there telling you that chocolate is healthy, a randomized trial with hard clinical endpoints such as COSMOS should generally win the day.

 

The Final Goodbyes — Summarizing Your Case

As the party slowly winds down and everyone is saddened that you will soon take your leave, synthesize everything you have taught them over the evening. Like movies, not all studies are good. Some are just bad. They can be prone to reverse causation or confounding, and they may report relative risks when absolute risks would be more telling. Reading research studies critically is essential for separating the wheat from the chaff. With the knowledge you have now imparted to your friends, they will be much better consumers of medical news, especially when it comes to food. 

And they will no doubt thank you for it by never inviting you to another dinner party!

Labos, a cardiologist at Hôpital, Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. He has a degree in epidemiology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You’re invited to a dinner party but you struggle to make small talk. Do not worry; you can use your knowledge of study design and epidemiology to impress people with your savoir faire regarding popular food myths that will invariably crop up over cocktails. Because all journalism has been reduced to listicles, here are four ways to seem clever at dinner parties.

1. The Predinner Cocktails: A Lesson in Reverse Causation

Wine connoisseurs sniff, swirl, and gently swish the wine in their mouths before spitting out and cleansing their palates to better appreciate the subtlety of each vintage. If you’re not an oenophile, no matter. Whenever somebody claims that moderate amounts of alcohol are good for your heart, this is your moment to pounce. Interject yourself in the conversation and tell everybody about reverse causation.

Reverse causation, also known as protopathic bias, involves misinterpreting the directionality of an association. You assume that X leads to Y, when in fact Y leads to X. Temporal paradoxes are useful plot devices in science fiction movies, but they have no place in medical research. In our bland world, cause must precede effect. As such, smoking leads to lung cancer; lung cancer doesn’t make you smoke more. 

But with alcohol, directionality is less obvious. Many studies of alcohol and cardiovascular disease have demonstrated a U-shaped association, with risk being lowest among those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (usually one to two drinks per day) and higher in those who drink more and also those who drink very little.

But one must ask why some people drink little or no alcohol. There is an important difference between former drinkers and never drinkers. Former drinkers cut back for a reason. More likely than not, the reason for this newfound sobriety was medical. A new cancer diagnosis, the emergence of atrial fibrillation, the development of diabetes, or rising blood pressure are all good reasons to reduce or eliminate alcohol. A cross-sectional study will fail to capture that alcohol consumption changes over time — people who now don’t drink may have imbibed alcohol in years past. It was not abstinence that led to an increased risk for heart disease; it was the increased risk for heart disease that led to abstinence.

You see the same phenomenon with the so-called obesity paradox. The idea that being a little overweight is good for you may appeal when you no longer fit into last year’s pants. But people who are underweight are so for a reason. Malnutrition, cachexia from cancer, or some other cause is almost certainly driving up the risk at the left-hand side of the U-shaped curve that makes the middle part seem better than it actually is.

Food consumption changes over time. A cross-sectional survey at one point in time cannot accurately capture past habits and distant exposures, especially for diseases such as heart disease and cancer that develop slowly over time. Studies on alcohol that try to overcome these shortcomings by eliminating former drinkers, or by using Mendelian randomization to better account for past exposure, do not show a cardiovascular benefit for moderate red wine drinking.

 

2. The Hors D’oeuvres — The Importance of RCTs

Now that you have made yourself the center of attention, it is time to cement your newfound reputation as a font of scientific knowledge. Most self-respecting hosts will serve smoked salmon as an amuse-bouche before the main meal. When someone mentions the health benefits of fish oils, you should take the opportunity to teach them about confounding.

Fish, especially cold-water fish from northern climates, have relatively high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Despite the plethora of observational studies suggesting a cardiovascular benefit, it’s now relatively clear that fish oil or omega-3 supplements have no medical benefit.

This will probably come as a shock to the worried well, but many studies, including VITAL and ASCEND, have demonstrated no cardiovascular or cancer benefit to supplementation with omega-3s. The reason is straightforward and explains why hormone replacement therapy, vitamin D, and myriad purported game-changers never panned out. Confounding is hard to overcome in observational research.

Prior to the publication of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Study, hormone replacement therapy was routinely prescribed to postmenopausal women because numerous observational studies suggested a cardiovascular benefit. But with the publication of the WHI study, it became clear that much of that “benefit” was due to confounding. The women choosing to take hormones were more health conscious at baseline and healthier overall. 

A similar phenomenon occurred during COVID. Patients with low serum vitamin D levels had worse outcomes, prompting many to suggest vitamin D supplementation as a possible treatment. Trials did not support the intervention because we’d overlooked the obvious. People with vitamin D deficiency have underlying health problems that contribute to the vitamin D deficiency. They are probably older, frailer, possibly with a poorer diet. No amount of statistical adjustment can account for all those differences, and some degree of residual confounding will always persist.

The only way to overcome confounding is with randomization. When patients are randomly assigned to one group or another, their baseline differences largely balance out if the randomization was performed properly and the groups were large enough. There is a role for observational research, such as in situations where ethics, cost, and practicality do not allow for a randomized controlled trial. But randomized controlled trials have largely put to rest the purported health benefits of over-the-counter fish oils, omega-3s, and vitamin D.

 

3. The Main Course — Absolute vs Relative Risk

When you get to the main course, all eyes will now be on you. You will almost certainly be called upon to pronounce on the harms or benefits of red meat consumption. Begin by regaling your guests with a little trivia. Ask them if they know the definition of red meat and white meat. When someone says pork is white meat, you can reveal that “pork, the other white meat,” was a marketing slogan with no scientific underpinning. Now that everyone is lulled into a stupefied silence, tell them that red meat comes from mammals and white meat comes from birds. As they process this revelation, you can now launch into the deeply mathematical concept of absolute vs relative risk.

Many etiquette books will caution against bringing up math at a dinner party. These books are wrong. Everyone finds math interesting if they are primed properly. For example, you can point to a study claiming that berries reduce cardiovascular risk in women. Even if true — and there is reason to be cautious, given the observational nature of the research — we need to understand what the authors meant by a 32% risk reduction. (Side note: It was a reduction in hazard, with a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.96), but we won’t dwell on the difference between hazard ratios and risk ratios right now.)

This relative risk reduction has to be interpreted carefully. The authors divided the population into quintiles based on their consumption of anthocyanins (the antioxidant in blueberries and strawberries) and compared the bottom fifth (average consumption, 2.5 mg/d) with the top fifth (average consumption, 25 mg/d). The bottom quintile had 126 myocardial infarctions (MIs) over 324,793 patient-years compared with 59 MIs over 332,143 patient-years. Some quick math shows an approximate reduction from 39 to 18 MIs per 100,000 patient-years. Or to put it another way, you must get 4762 women to increase their berry consumption 10-fold for 1 year to prevent one heart attack. Feel free to show people how you calculated this number. They will be impressed by your head for numbers. It is nothing more than 39 minus 18, divided by 100,000, to get the absolute risk reduction. Take the reciprocal of this (ie, 1 divided by this number) to get the number needed to treat.

Describing risks in absolute terms or using number needed to treat (or harm) can help conceptualize statistics that are sometimes hard to wrap your head around.

 

4. Dessert — Funding

By the time the coffee is served, everyone will be hanging on to your every word. This is as it should be, and you should not be afraid of your newfound power and influence. 

Dessert will probably involve some form of chocolate, possibly in cake format. (Anyone who serves fruit as dessert is not someone you should associate with.) Take the opportunity to tell your follow diners that chocolate is not actually good for you and will not boost brain performance.

The health benefits of chocolate are often repeated but rarely scrutinized. In fact, much of the scientific research purporting to show that chocolate is good for you did not actually study chocolate. It usually involved a cocoa bean extract because the chocolate manufacturing process destroys the supposedly health-promoting antioxidants in the cocoa bean. It is true that dark chocolate has more antioxidants than milk chocolate, and that the addition of milk to chocolate further inactivates the potentially healthy antioxidants. But the amount of sugar and fat that has to be added to chocolate to make it palatable precludes any serious consideration about health benefits. Dark chocolate may have less fat and sugar than milk chocolate, but it still has a lot.

But even the cocoa bean extract doesn’t seem to do much for your heart or your brain. The long-awaited COSMOS study was published with surprisingly little fanfare. The largest randomized controlled trial of chocolate (or rather cocoa bean extract) was supposed to settle the issue definitively.

COSMOS showed no cardiovascular or neurocognitive benefit to the cocoa bean extract. But the health halo of chocolate continues to be bolstered by many studies funded by chocolate manufacturers. 

We are appropriately critical of the pharmaceutical industry’s involvement in drug research. However, we should not forget that any private entity is prone to the same self-interest regardless of its product’s tastiness. How many of you knew that there was an avocado lobby funding research? No matter how many industry-funded observational studies using surrogate endpoints are out there telling you that chocolate is healthy, a randomized trial with hard clinical endpoints such as COSMOS should generally win the day.

 

The Final Goodbyes — Summarizing Your Case

As the party slowly winds down and everyone is saddened that you will soon take your leave, synthesize everything you have taught them over the evening. Like movies, not all studies are good. Some are just bad. They can be prone to reverse causation or confounding, and they may report relative risks when absolute risks would be more telling. Reading research studies critically is essential for separating the wheat from the chaff. With the knowledge you have now imparted to your friends, they will be much better consumers of medical news, especially when it comes to food. 

And they will no doubt thank you for it by never inviting you to another dinner party!

Labos, a cardiologist at Hôpital, Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. He has a degree in epidemiology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You’re invited to a dinner party but you struggle to make small talk. Do not worry; you can use your knowledge of study design and epidemiology to impress people with your savoir faire regarding popular food myths that will invariably crop up over cocktails. Because all journalism has been reduced to listicles, here are four ways to seem clever at dinner parties.

1. The Predinner Cocktails: A Lesson in Reverse Causation

Wine connoisseurs sniff, swirl, and gently swish the wine in their mouths before spitting out and cleansing their palates to better appreciate the subtlety of each vintage. If you’re not an oenophile, no matter. Whenever somebody claims that moderate amounts of alcohol are good for your heart, this is your moment to pounce. Interject yourself in the conversation and tell everybody about reverse causation.

Reverse causation, also known as protopathic bias, involves misinterpreting the directionality of an association. You assume that X leads to Y, when in fact Y leads to X. Temporal paradoxes are useful plot devices in science fiction movies, but they have no place in medical research. In our bland world, cause must precede effect. As such, smoking leads to lung cancer; lung cancer doesn’t make you smoke more. 

But with alcohol, directionality is less obvious. Many studies of alcohol and cardiovascular disease have demonstrated a U-shaped association, with risk being lowest among those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (usually one to two drinks per day) and higher in those who drink more and also those who drink very little.

But one must ask why some people drink little or no alcohol. There is an important difference between former drinkers and never drinkers. Former drinkers cut back for a reason. More likely than not, the reason for this newfound sobriety was medical. A new cancer diagnosis, the emergence of atrial fibrillation, the development of diabetes, or rising blood pressure are all good reasons to reduce or eliminate alcohol. A cross-sectional study will fail to capture that alcohol consumption changes over time — people who now don’t drink may have imbibed alcohol in years past. It was not abstinence that led to an increased risk for heart disease; it was the increased risk for heart disease that led to abstinence.

You see the same phenomenon with the so-called obesity paradox. The idea that being a little overweight is good for you may appeal when you no longer fit into last year’s pants. But people who are underweight are so for a reason. Malnutrition, cachexia from cancer, or some other cause is almost certainly driving up the risk at the left-hand side of the U-shaped curve that makes the middle part seem better than it actually is.

Food consumption changes over time. A cross-sectional survey at one point in time cannot accurately capture past habits and distant exposures, especially for diseases such as heart disease and cancer that develop slowly over time. Studies on alcohol that try to overcome these shortcomings by eliminating former drinkers, or by using Mendelian randomization to better account for past exposure, do not show a cardiovascular benefit for moderate red wine drinking.

 

2. The Hors D’oeuvres — The Importance of RCTs

Now that you have made yourself the center of attention, it is time to cement your newfound reputation as a font of scientific knowledge. Most self-respecting hosts will serve smoked salmon as an amuse-bouche before the main meal. When someone mentions the health benefits of fish oils, you should take the opportunity to teach them about confounding.

Fish, especially cold-water fish from northern climates, have relatively high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Despite the plethora of observational studies suggesting a cardiovascular benefit, it’s now relatively clear that fish oil or omega-3 supplements have no medical benefit.

This will probably come as a shock to the worried well, but many studies, including VITAL and ASCEND, have demonstrated no cardiovascular or cancer benefit to supplementation with omega-3s. The reason is straightforward and explains why hormone replacement therapy, vitamin D, and myriad purported game-changers never panned out. Confounding is hard to overcome in observational research.

Prior to the publication of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Study, hormone replacement therapy was routinely prescribed to postmenopausal women because numerous observational studies suggested a cardiovascular benefit. But with the publication of the WHI study, it became clear that much of that “benefit” was due to confounding. The women choosing to take hormones were more health conscious at baseline and healthier overall. 

A similar phenomenon occurred during COVID. Patients with low serum vitamin D levels had worse outcomes, prompting many to suggest vitamin D supplementation as a possible treatment. Trials did not support the intervention because we’d overlooked the obvious. People with vitamin D deficiency have underlying health problems that contribute to the vitamin D deficiency. They are probably older, frailer, possibly with a poorer diet. No amount of statistical adjustment can account for all those differences, and some degree of residual confounding will always persist.

The only way to overcome confounding is with randomization. When patients are randomly assigned to one group or another, their baseline differences largely balance out if the randomization was performed properly and the groups were large enough. There is a role for observational research, such as in situations where ethics, cost, and practicality do not allow for a randomized controlled trial. But randomized controlled trials have largely put to rest the purported health benefits of over-the-counter fish oils, omega-3s, and vitamin D.

 

3. The Main Course — Absolute vs Relative Risk

When you get to the main course, all eyes will now be on you. You will almost certainly be called upon to pronounce on the harms or benefits of red meat consumption. Begin by regaling your guests with a little trivia. Ask them if they know the definition of red meat and white meat. When someone says pork is white meat, you can reveal that “pork, the other white meat,” was a marketing slogan with no scientific underpinning. Now that everyone is lulled into a stupefied silence, tell them that red meat comes from mammals and white meat comes from birds. As they process this revelation, you can now launch into the deeply mathematical concept of absolute vs relative risk.

Many etiquette books will caution against bringing up math at a dinner party. These books are wrong. Everyone finds math interesting if they are primed properly. For example, you can point to a study claiming that berries reduce cardiovascular risk in women. Even if true — and there is reason to be cautious, given the observational nature of the research — we need to understand what the authors meant by a 32% risk reduction. (Side note: It was a reduction in hazard, with a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.96), but we won’t dwell on the difference between hazard ratios and risk ratios right now.)

This relative risk reduction has to be interpreted carefully. The authors divided the population into quintiles based on their consumption of anthocyanins (the antioxidant in blueberries and strawberries) and compared the bottom fifth (average consumption, 2.5 mg/d) with the top fifth (average consumption, 25 mg/d). The bottom quintile had 126 myocardial infarctions (MIs) over 324,793 patient-years compared with 59 MIs over 332,143 patient-years. Some quick math shows an approximate reduction from 39 to 18 MIs per 100,000 patient-years. Or to put it another way, you must get 4762 women to increase their berry consumption 10-fold for 1 year to prevent one heart attack. Feel free to show people how you calculated this number. They will be impressed by your head for numbers. It is nothing more than 39 minus 18, divided by 100,000, to get the absolute risk reduction. Take the reciprocal of this (ie, 1 divided by this number) to get the number needed to treat.

Describing risks in absolute terms or using number needed to treat (or harm) can help conceptualize statistics that are sometimes hard to wrap your head around.

 

4. Dessert — Funding

By the time the coffee is served, everyone will be hanging on to your every word. This is as it should be, and you should not be afraid of your newfound power and influence. 

Dessert will probably involve some form of chocolate, possibly in cake format. (Anyone who serves fruit as dessert is not someone you should associate with.) Take the opportunity to tell your follow diners that chocolate is not actually good for you and will not boost brain performance.

The health benefits of chocolate are often repeated but rarely scrutinized. In fact, much of the scientific research purporting to show that chocolate is good for you did not actually study chocolate. It usually involved a cocoa bean extract because the chocolate manufacturing process destroys the supposedly health-promoting antioxidants in the cocoa bean. It is true that dark chocolate has more antioxidants than milk chocolate, and that the addition of milk to chocolate further inactivates the potentially healthy antioxidants. But the amount of sugar and fat that has to be added to chocolate to make it palatable precludes any serious consideration about health benefits. Dark chocolate may have less fat and sugar than milk chocolate, but it still has a lot.

But even the cocoa bean extract doesn’t seem to do much for your heart or your brain. The long-awaited COSMOS study was published with surprisingly little fanfare. The largest randomized controlled trial of chocolate (or rather cocoa bean extract) was supposed to settle the issue definitively.

COSMOS showed no cardiovascular or neurocognitive benefit to the cocoa bean extract. But the health halo of chocolate continues to be bolstered by many studies funded by chocolate manufacturers. 

We are appropriately critical of the pharmaceutical industry’s involvement in drug research. However, we should not forget that any private entity is prone to the same self-interest regardless of its product’s tastiness. How many of you knew that there was an avocado lobby funding research? No matter how many industry-funded observational studies using surrogate endpoints are out there telling you that chocolate is healthy, a randomized trial with hard clinical endpoints such as COSMOS should generally win the day.

 

The Final Goodbyes — Summarizing Your Case

As the party slowly winds down and everyone is saddened that you will soon take your leave, synthesize everything you have taught them over the evening. Like movies, not all studies are good. Some are just bad. They can be prone to reverse causation or confounding, and they may report relative risks when absolute risks would be more telling. Reading research studies critically is essential for separating the wheat from the chaff. With the knowledge you have now imparted to your friends, they will be much better consumers of medical news, especially when it comes to food. 

And they will no doubt thank you for it by never inviting you to another dinner party!

Labos, a cardiologist at Hôpital, Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. He has a degree in epidemiology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium can reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure in older individuals with overweight, particularly in those with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 and those diagnosed with hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• Large cohort data have provided epidemiologic evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to a higher risk for cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension; however, evidence on the beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure outcomes remains inconclusive.
• A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effect of two doses of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) on blood pressure in individuals aged 65 years or older with a BMI > 25 and serum vitamin D levels of 10-30 ng/mL.
• A total of 221 participants were recruited through outpatient departments, clinics, and advertisements in the greater Beirut area and received calcium supplementation in combination with either a low dose (600 IU/d, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine [IOM]) or a high dose (3750 IU/d) of vitamin D3.
• Blood pressure measurements were taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using a SureSigns VS3 monitor.
• Participants were also stratified by BMI and hypertension status to assess the effects of vitamin D and calcium on blood pressure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly reduced with vitamin D supplementation in the overall cohort (mean difference, 3.5 and 2.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .005 and P = .002, respectively), with the effect more prominent in those in the high-dose vitamin D group.
• Participants with a BMI > 30 experienced reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the overall cohort (P < .0001 and P = .01, respectively); although the systolic blood pressure was significantly reduced with both high- and low-dose vitamin D, the diastolic blood pressure decreased in the high-dose group only.
• Patients with hypertension benefited from all doses of vitamin D, regardless of the BMI.
• Systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months was significantly predicted by BMI and baseline systolic blood pressure measurements, although not by the dose of vitamin D received.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study found vitamin D supplementation may decrease blood pressure in specific subgroups such as older people, people with obesity, and possibly those with low vitamin D levels,” said study author Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, MD, MPH, of the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon, said in a news release. “High vitamin D doses compared to the IOM’s recommended daily dose did not provide additional health benefits.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maya Rahme, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program, World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon. It was published online in Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the exploratory nature of the analyses and the low power of the subgroup analyses. Additionally, the study focused on older individuals who were sedentary and had overweight, many of whom had prediabetes — conditions known to influence blood pressure. The possible effect of calcium alone on blood pressure reduction was also unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the American University of Beirut, St Joseph University, and the Lebanese Council for National Scientific Research. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium can reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure in older individuals with overweight, particularly in those with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 and those diagnosed with hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• Large cohort data have provided epidemiologic evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to a higher risk for cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension; however, evidence on the beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure outcomes remains inconclusive.
• A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effect of two doses of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) on blood pressure in individuals aged 65 years or older with a BMI > 25 and serum vitamin D levels of 10-30 ng/mL.
• A total of 221 participants were recruited through outpatient departments, clinics, and advertisements in the greater Beirut area and received calcium supplementation in combination with either a low dose (600 IU/d, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine [IOM]) or a high dose (3750 IU/d) of vitamin D3.
• Blood pressure measurements were taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using a SureSigns VS3 monitor.
• Participants were also stratified by BMI and hypertension status to assess the effects of vitamin D and calcium on blood pressure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly reduced with vitamin D supplementation in the overall cohort (mean difference, 3.5 and 2.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .005 and P = .002, respectively), with the effect more prominent in those in the high-dose vitamin D group.
• Participants with a BMI > 30 experienced reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the overall cohort (P < .0001 and P = .01, respectively); although the systolic blood pressure was significantly reduced with both high- and low-dose vitamin D, the diastolic blood pressure decreased in the high-dose group only.
• Patients with hypertension benefited from all doses of vitamin D, regardless of the BMI.
• Systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months was significantly predicted by BMI and baseline systolic blood pressure measurements, although not by the dose of vitamin D received.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study found vitamin D supplementation may decrease blood pressure in specific subgroups such as older people, people with obesity, and possibly those with low vitamin D levels,” said study author Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, MD, MPH, of the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon, said in a news release. “High vitamin D doses compared to the IOM’s recommended daily dose did not provide additional health benefits.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maya Rahme, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program, World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon. It was published online in Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the exploratory nature of the analyses and the low power of the subgroup analyses. Additionally, the study focused on older individuals who were sedentary and had overweight, many of whom had prediabetes — conditions known to influence blood pressure. The possible effect of calcium alone on blood pressure reduction was also unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the American University of Beirut, St Joseph University, and the Lebanese Council for National Scientific Research. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium can reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure in older individuals with overweight, particularly in those with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 and those diagnosed with hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• Large cohort data have provided epidemiologic evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to a higher risk for cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension; however, evidence on the beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure outcomes remains inconclusive.
• A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effect of two doses of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) on blood pressure in individuals aged 65 years or older with a BMI > 25 and serum vitamin D levels of 10-30 ng/mL.
• A total of 221 participants were recruited through outpatient departments, clinics, and advertisements in the greater Beirut area and received calcium supplementation in combination with either a low dose (600 IU/d, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine [IOM]) or a high dose (3750 IU/d) of vitamin D3.
• Blood pressure measurements were taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using a SureSigns VS3 monitor.
• Participants were also stratified by BMI and hypertension status to assess the effects of vitamin D and calcium on blood pressure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly reduced with vitamin D supplementation in the overall cohort (mean difference, 3.5 and 2.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .005 and P = .002, respectively), with the effect more prominent in those in the high-dose vitamin D group.
• Participants with a BMI > 30 experienced reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the overall cohort (P < .0001 and P = .01, respectively); although the systolic blood pressure was significantly reduced with both high- and low-dose vitamin D, the diastolic blood pressure decreased in the high-dose group only.
• Patients with hypertension benefited from all doses of vitamin D, regardless of the BMI.
• Systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months was significantly predicted by BMI and baseline systolic blood pressure measurements, although not by the dose of vitamin D received.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study found vitamin D supplementation may decrease blood pressure in specific subgroups such as older people, people with obesity, and possibly those with low vitamin D levels,” said study author Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, MD, MPH, of the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon, said in a news release. “High vitamin D doses compared to the IOM’s recommended daily dose did not provide additional health benefits.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maya Rahme, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program, World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon. It was published online in Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the exploratory nature of the analyses and the low power of the subgroup analyses. Additionally, the study focused on older individuals who were sedentary and had overweight, many of whom had prediabetes — conditions known to influence blood pressure. The possible effect of calcium alone on blood pressure reduction was also unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the American University of Beirut, St Joseph University, and the Lebanese Council for National Scientific Research. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year. The PRECISE-DAPT score helped to predict GI bleeding among high-risk and moderate-risk patients.

“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.

“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”

Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.

In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.

Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.

The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.

Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.

In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).

However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.

“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”

Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.

“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”

The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year. The PRECISE-DAPT score helped to predict GI bleeding among high-risk and moderate-risk patients.

“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.

“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”

Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.

In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.

Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.

The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.

Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.

In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).

However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.

“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”

Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.

“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”

The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year. The PRECISE-DAPT score helped to predict GI bleeding among high-risk and moderate-risk patients.

“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.

“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”

Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.

In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.

Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.

The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.

Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.

In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).

However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.

“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”

Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.

“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”

The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) caused a stir when they recommended in their latest atrial fibrillation (AF) management guideline that gender no longer be included in the decision to initiate oral anticoagulation therapy.

The move aims to level the playing field between men and women and follows a more nuanced understanding of stroke risk in patients with AF, said experts. It also acknowledges the lack of evidence in people receiving cross-sex hormone therapy.

In any case, the guidelines, developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and published by the European Heart Journal on August 30, simply follow 2023’s US recommendations, they added.

 

One Size Does Not Fit All

So, what to the ESC guidelines actually say?

They underline that, if left untreated, the risk for ischemic stroke is increased fivefold in patients with AF, and the “default approach should therefore be to provide oral anticoagulation to all eligible AF patients, except those at low risk for incident stroke or thromboembolism.”

However, the authors note that there is a lack of strong evidence on how to apply the current risk scores to help inform that decision in real-world patients.

Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, Professor of Cardiology at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England, and senior author of the ESC guidelines, said in an interview that “the available scores have a relatively poor ability to accurately predict which patients will have a stroke or thromboembolic event.”

Instead, he said “a much better approach is for healthcare professionals to look at each patient’s individual risk factors, using the risk scores to identify those patients that might not benefit from oral anticoagulant therapy.”

For these guidelines, the authors therefore wanted to “move away from a one-size-fits-all” approach, Kotecha said, and instead ensure that more patients can benefit from the new range of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are easier to take and with much lower chance of side effects or major bleeding.

To achieve this, they separated their clinical recommendations from any particular risk score, and instead focused on the practicalities of implementation.

 

Risk Modifier Vs Risk Factor

To explain their decision the authors highlight that “the most popular risk score” is the CHA2DS2–VASc, which gives a point for female sex, alongside factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and a sliding scale of points for increasing age.

Kotecha pointed out the score was developed before the DOACs were available and may not account for how risk factors have changed in recent decades.

The result is that CHA2DS2–VASc gives the same number of points to an individual with heart failure or prior transient ischemic attack as to a woman aged less than 65 years, “but the magnitude of increased risk is not the same,” Usha Beth Tedrow, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

As far back as 2018, it was known that “female sex is a risk modifier, rather than a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation,” noted Jose Joglar, MD, lead author of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation said in an interview.

A Danish national registry study involving 239,671 AF patients treated between 1997 and 2015, nearly half of whom were women, showed that, at a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 0, the “risk of stroke between men and women is absolutely the same,” he said.

“It is not until after a CHA2DS2–VASc score of 2 that the curves start to separate,” Joglar, Program Director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, continued, “but by then you have already made the decision to anticoagulate.”

More recently, Kotecha and colleagues conducted a population cohort study of the electronic healthcare records of UK primary care patients treated between 2005 and 2020, and identified 78,852 with AF; more than a third were women.

Their analysis, published on September 1, showed that women had a lower adjusted rate of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or arterial thromboembolism, driven by a reduced mortality rate.

“Removal of gender from clinical risk scoring could simplify the approach to which patients with AF should be offered oral anticoagulation,” Kotecha and colleagues concluded.

Joglar clarified that “women are at increased risk for stroke than men” overall, but by the time that risk “becomes manifest, other risk factors have come into play, and they have already met the criteria for anticoagulation.”

The authors of the latest ESC guideline therefore concluded that the “inclusion of gender complicates clinical practice both for healthcare professionals and patients.” Their solution was to remove the question of gender for decisions over initiating oral anticoagulant therapy in clinical practice altogether.

This includes individuals who identify as transgender or are undergoing sex hormone therapy, as all the experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to know if that affects stroke risk.

Instead, guidelines state that the drugs are “recommended in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more and should be considered in those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 1, following a patient-centered and shared care approach.”

“Dropping the gender part of the risk score is not really a substantial change” from previous ESC or other guidelines, as different points were required in the past to recommend anticoagulants for women and men, Kotecha said, adding that “making the approach easier for clinicians may avoid penalizing women as well as nonbinary and transgender patients.”

Anne B. Curtis, MD, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo in New York, agreed.

Putting aside the question of female sex, she said that there are not a lot of people under the age of 65 years with “absolutely no risk factors,” and so, “if the only reason you would anticoagulate” someone of that age is because they are a woman that “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

The ESC guidelines are “trying to say, ‘look at the other risk factors, and if anything is there, go ahead and anticoagulate,” Curtis said in an interview.

“It’s actually a very thoughtful decision,” Tedrow said, and not “intended to discount risk in women.” Rather, it’s a statement that acknowledges the problem of recommending anticoagulation therapy in women “for whom it is not appropriate.”

Joglar pointed out that that recommendation, although not characterized in the same way, was in fact included in the 2023 US guidelines.

“We wanted to use a more nuanced approach,” he said, and move away from using CHA2DS2–VASc as the prime determinant of whether to start oral anticoagulation and towards a magnitude risk assessment, in which female sex is seen as a risk modifier.

“The Europeans and the Americans are looking at the same data, so we often reach the same conclusions,” Joglar said, although “we sometimes use different wordings.”

Overall, Kotecha expressed the hope that the move “will lead to better implementation of guidelines, at the end of the day.”

“That’s all we can hope for: Patients will be offered a more individualized approach, leading to more appropriate use of treatment in the right patients.”

The newer direct oral anticoagulation is “a much simpler therapy,” he added. “There is very little monitoring, a similar risk of bleeding as aspirin, and yet the ability to largely prevent the high rate of stroke and thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation.”

“So, it’s a big ticket item for our communities and public health, particularly as atrial fibrillation is expected to double in prevalence in the next few decades and evidence is building that it can lead to vascular dementia in the long-term.”

No funding was declared. Kotecha declares relationships with Bayer, Protherics Medicines Development, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Amomed, MyoKardia. Curtis declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Abbott. Joglar declared no relevant relationships. Tedrow declared no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that triggers a local immuno-inflammatory response, potentially leading to periodontal tissue destruction and tooth loss. Affecting 1.1 billion people worldwide, periodontitis is recognized as a significant public health issue. It is also linked to a number of other conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disorders. The European Federation of Periodontology recently published a consensus report recommending that the optimal management of periodontitis should involve a collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and oral health professionals.

Diabetes and Periodontitis

A bidirectional association exists between diabetes and periodontitis. Hyperglycemia accelerates periodontitis progression by promoting inflammation and hindering the healing process, while periodontitis is associated with higher hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes and an increased risk for diabetes development in others. Intervention studies have demonstrated the positive effect of glycemic control on periodontitis and vice versa, with periodontal treatment improving A1c levels.

GPs can raise awareness of the links between these conditions as well as emphasize the benefits of addressing both metabolic and periodontal abnormalities. They should refer patients with diabetes to oral health specialists and look for signs of periodontitis, such as bleeding gums and loose teeth, in patients with diabetes and those with prediabetes.

 

Cardiovascular Diseases and Periodontitis

Cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis are linked by their epidemiological associations and common biologic mechanisms. This connection can be explained by some of their shared risk factors, such as smoking and systemic inflammatory pathways. Although no intervention studies have shown a direct reduction in cardiovascular risk from periodontal care, two studies have demonstrated improvements in surrogate markers such as blood pressure and arterial stiffness. GPs should inquire about symptoms of periodontitis in cardiovascular patients and, if necessary, refer them to oral health specialists. Periodontal treatments, whether surgical or nonsurgical, pose no risk for patients receiving well-managed secondary preventive treatments.

 

Respiratory Diseases and Periodontitis

The primary evidence linking periodontitis with chronic respiratory diseases concerns chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals with periodontitis have a 33% higher risk of developing COPD, and patients with COPD and periodontitis may experience a greater decline in lung function. An established association also exists between periodontitis and obstructive sleep apnea, although the data remain inconclusive regarding a link with asthma. GPs should encourage patients with COPD to quit smoking, as it benefits both respiratory and oral health.

Finally, based on meta-analyses of COVID-19, experts note significant associations between periodontitis and the need for assisted ventilation or the risk for death during a COVID-19 infection.

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

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that triggers a local immuno-inflammatory response, potentially leading to periodontal tissue destruction and tooth loss. Affecting 1.1 billion people worldwide, periodontitis is recognized as a significant public health issue. It is also linked to a number of other conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disorders. The European Federation of Periodontology recently published a consensus report recommending that the optimal management of periodontitis should involve a collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and oral health professionals.

Diabetes and Periodontitis

A bidirectional association exists between diabetes and periodontitis. Hyperglycemia accelerates periodontitis progression by promoting inflammation and hindering the healing process, while periodontitis is associated with higher hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes and an increased risk for diabetes development in others. Intervention studies have demonstrated the positive effect of glycemic control on periodontitis and vice versa, with periodontal treatment improving A1c levels.

GPs can raise awareness of the links between these conditions as well as emphasize the benefits of addressing both metabolic and periodontal abnormalities. They should refer patients with diabetes to oral health specialists and look for signs of periodontitis, such as bleeding gums and loose teeth, in patients with diabetes and those with prediabetes.

 

Cardiovascular Diseases and Periodontitis

Cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis are linked by their epidemiological associations and common biologic mechanisms. This connection can be explained by some of their shared risk factors, such as smoking and systemic inflammatory pathways. Although no intervention studies have shown a direct reduction in cardiovascular risk from periodontal care, two studies have demonstrated improvements in surrogate markers such as blood pressure and arterial stiffness. GPs should inquire about symptoms of periodontitis in cardiovascular patients and, if necessary, refer them to oral health specialists. Periodontal treatments, whether surgical or nonsurgical, pose no risk for patients receiving well-managed secondary preventive treatments.

 

Respiratory Diseases and Periodontitis

The primary evidence linking periodontitis with chronic respiratory diseases concerns chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals with periodontitis have a 33% higher risk of developing COPD, and patients with COPD and periodontitis may experience a greater decline in lung function. An established association also exists between periodontitis and obstructive sleep apnea, although the data remain inconclusive regarding a link with asthma. GPs should encourage patients with COPD to quit smoking, as it benefits both respiratory and oral health.

Finally, based on meta-analyses of COVID-19, experts note significant associations between periodontitis and the need for assisted ventilation or the risk for death during a COVID-19 infection.

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

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that triggers a local immuno-inflammatory response, potentially leading to periodontal tissue destruction and tooth loss. Affecting 1.1 billion people worldwide, periodontitis is recognized as a significant public health issue. It is also linked to a number of other conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disorders. The European Federation of Periodontology recently published a consensus report recommending that the optimal management of periodontitis should involve a collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and oral health professionals.

Diabetes and Periodontitis

A bidirectional association exists between diabetes and periodontitis. Hyperglycemia accelerates periodontitis progression by promoting inflammation and hindering the healing process, while periodontitis is associated with higher hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with diabetes and an increased risk for diabetes development in others. Intervention studies have demonstrated the positive effect of glycemic control on periodontitis and vice versa, with periodontal treatment improving A1c levels.

GPs can raise awareness of the links between these conditions as well as emphasize the benefits of addressing both metabolic and periodontal abnormalities. They should refer patients with diabetes to oral health specialists and look for signs of periodontitis, such as bleeding gums and loose teeth, in patients with diabetes and those with prediabetes.

 

Cardiovascular Diseases and Periodontitis

Cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis are linked by their epidemiological associations and common biologic mechanisms. This connection can be explained by some of their shared risk factors, such as smoking and systemic inflammatory pathways. Although no intervention studies have shown a direct reduction in cardiovascular risk from periodontal care, two studies have demonstrated improvements in surrogate markers such as blood pressure and arterial stiffness. GPs should inquire about symptoms of periodontitis in cardiovascular patients and, if necessary, refer them to oral health specialists. Periodontal treatments, whether surgical or nonsurgical, pose no risk for patients receiving well-managed secondary preventive treatments.

 

Respiratory Diseases and Periodontitis

The primary evidence linking periodontitis with chronic respiratory diseases concerns chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals with periodontitis have a 33% higher risk of developing COPD, and patients with COPD and periodontitis may experience a greater decline in lung function. An established association also exists between periodontitis and obstructive sleep apnea, although the data remain inconclusive regarding a link with asthma. GPs should encourage patients with COPD to quit smoking, as it benefits both respiratory and oral health.

Finally, based on meta-analyses of COVID-19, experts note significant associations between periodontitis and the need for assisted ventilation or the risk for death during a COVID-19 infection.

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