Cardiology

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Background: Although average survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest is 17%-20%, many clinicians feel that survival is lower in older patients or patients with multiple comorbidities. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a simple bedside visual tool that encapsulates patients’ mobility and functional status, with a score greater than 4 indicating frailty. How this measure of frailty correlates with outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown.

Dr. Chokshi is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: Although average survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest is 17%-20%, many clinicians feel that survival is lower in older patients or patients with multiple comorbidities. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a simple bedside visual tool that encapsulates patients’ mobility and functional status, with a score greater than 4 indicating frailty. How this measure of frailty correlates with outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown.

Dr. Chokshi is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: Although average survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest is 17%-20%, many clinicians feel that survival is lower in older patients or patients with multiple comorbidities. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a simple bedside visual tool that encapsulates patients’ mobility and functional status, with a score greater than 4 indicating frailty. How this measure of frailty correlates with outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown.

Dr. Chokshi is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: There are extensive publications regarding preoperative risk assessment and optimization of risk management. This article is a review of current aggregate data from various meta-analyses and observational studies. It explores a systematic approach to preoperative risk assessment.

Dr. Young is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and instructor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: There are extensive publications regarding preoperative risk assessment and optimization of risk management. This article is a review of current aggregate data from various meta-analyses and observational studies. It explores a systematic approach to preoperative risk assessment.

Dr. Young is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and instructor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: There are extensive publications regarding preoperative risk assessment and optimization of risk management. This article is a review of current aggregate data from various meta-analyses and observational studies. It explores a systematic approach to preoperative risk assessment.

Dr. Young is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and instructor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.

The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.

In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.

Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.

Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.

Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”

Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.

“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.

“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.

But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”

In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.

Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.

In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.

LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.

There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”

These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”

The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.

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

The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.

The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.

In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.

Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.

Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.

Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”

Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.

“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.

“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.

But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”

In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.

Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.

In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.

LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.

There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”

These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”

The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.

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

The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.

The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.

In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.

Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.

Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.

Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”

Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.

“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.

“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.

But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”

In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.

Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.

In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.

LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.

There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”

These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”

The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.

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

There is a significant inverse relationship between concentrations of circulating 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) and all-cause mortality, but only in people with vitamin D deficiency, suggests a new large-scale analysis.

Data on more than 380,000 participants gathered from 35 studies showed that, overall, there is no significant relationship between 25(OH)D concentrations, a clinical indicator of vitamin D status, and the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, or all-cause death, in a Mendelian randomization analysis.

However, Stephen Burgess, PhD, and colleagues showed that, in vitamin D–deficient individuals, each 10 nmol/L increase in 25(OH)D concentrations reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 31%.

The research, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, also suggests there was a nonsignificant link between 25(OH)D concentrations and stroke and CHD, but again, only in vitamin D deficient individuals.

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Butler-Laporte, MD, and J. Brent Richards, MD, praise the researchers on their study methodology.

They add that the results “could have important public health and clinical consequences” and will “allow clinicians to better weigh the potential benefits of supplementation against its risk,” such as financial cost, “for better patient care – particularly among those with frank vitamin D deficiency.”

They continue: “Given that vitamin D deficiency is relatively common and vitamin D supplementation is safe, the rationale exists to test the effect of vitamin D supplementation in those with deficiency in large-scale randomized controlled trials.”

However, Dr. Butler-Laporte and Dr. Richards, of the Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, also note the study has several limitations, including the fact that the lifetime exposure to lower vitamin D levels captured by Mendelian randomization may result in larger effect sizes than in conventional trials.
 

Prior RCTS underpowered to detect effects of vitamin D supplements

“There are several potential mechanisms by which vitamin D could be protective for cardiovascular mortality, including mechanisms linking low vitamin D status with hyperparathyroidism and low serum calcium and phosphate,” write Dr. Burgess of the MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge (England), and coauthors.

They also highlight that vitamin D is “further implicated in endothelial cell function” and affects the transcription of genes linked to cell division and apoptosis, providing “potential mechanisms implicating vitamin D for cancer.”

The researchers note that, while epidemiologic studies have “consistently” found a link between 25(OH)D levels and increased risk of cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality, and other chronic diseases, several large trials of vitamin D supplementation have reported “null results.”

They argue, however, that many of these trials have recruited individuals “irrespective of baseline 25(OH)D concentration” and have been underpowered to detect the effects of supplementation.

To overcome these limitations, the team gathered data from the UK Biobank, the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition Cardiovascular Disease (EPIC-CVD) study, 31 studies from the Vitamin D Studies Collaboration (VitDSC), and two Copenhagen population-based studies.

They first performed an observational study that included 384,721 individuals from the UK Biobank and 26,336 from EPIC-CVD who had a valid 25(OH)D measurement and no previously known cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Researchers also included 67,992 participants from the VitDSC studies who did not have previously known cardiovascular disease. They analyzed 25(OH)D concentrations, conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and major incident cardiovascular morbidity and mortality using individual participant data.

The results showed that, at low 25(OH)D concentrations, there was an inverse association between 25(OH)D and incident CHD, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

Next, the team conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis on 333,002 individuals from the UK Biobank and 26,336 from EPIC-CVD who were of European ancestry and had both a valid 25(OH)D measurement and genetic data that passed quality-control steps.

Information on 31,362 participants in the Copenhagen population-based studies was also included, giving a total of 386,406 individuals, of whom 33,546 had CHD, 18,166 had a stroke, and 27,885 died.

The mean age of participants ranged from 54.8 to 57.5 years, and between 53.4% and 55.4% were female.
 

Up to 7% of study participants were vitamin D deficient

The 25(OH)D analysis indicated that 3.9% of UK Biobank and 3.7% of Copenhagen study participants were deficient, compared with 6.9% in EPIC-CVD.

Across the full range of 25(OH)D concentrations, there was no significant association between genetically predicted 25(OH)D levels and CHD, stroke, or all-cause mortality.

However, restricting the analysis to individuals deemed vitamin D deficient (25[OH]D concentration < 25 nmol/L) revealed there was “strong evidence” for an inverse association with all-cause mortality, at an odds ratio per 10 nmol/L increase in genetically predicted 25(OH)D concentration of 0.69 (P < .0001), the team notes.

There were also nonsignificant associations between being in the deficient stratum and CHD, at an odds ratio of 0.89 (P = .14), and stroke, at an odds ratio of 0.85 (P = .09).

Further analysis suggests the association between 25(OH)D concentrations and all-cause mortality has a “clear threshold shape,” the researchers say, with evidence of an inverse association at concentrations below 40 nmol/L and null associations above that threshold.

They acknowledge, however, that their study has several potential limitations, including the assumption in their Mendelian randomization that the “only causal pathway from the genetic variants to the outcome is via 25(OH)D concentrations.”

Moreover, the genetic variants may affect 25(OH)D concentrations in a different way from “dietary supplementation or other clinical interventions.”

They also concede that their study was limited to middle-aged participants of European ancestries, which means the findings “might not be applicable to other populations.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Health Data Research UK, Cancer Research UK, and International Agency for Research on Cancer. Dr. Burgess has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

There is a significant inverse relationship between concentrations of circulating 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) and all-cause mortality, but only in people with vitamin D deficiency, suggests a new large-scale analysis.

Data on more than 380,000 participants gathered from 35 studies showed that, overall, there is no significant relationship between 25(OH)D concentrations, a clinical indicator of vitamin D status, and the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, or all-cause death, in a Mendelian randomization analysis.

However, Stephen Burgess, PhD, and colleagues showed that, in vitamin D–deficient individuals, each 10 nmol/L increase in 25(OH)D concentrations reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 31%.

The research, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, also suggests there was a nonsignificant link between 25(OH)D concentrations and stroke and CHD, but again, only in vitamin D deficient individuals.

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Butler-Laporte, MD, and J. Brent Richards, MD, praise the researchers on their study methodology.

They add that the results “could have important public health and clinical consequences” and will “allow clinicians to better weigh the potential benefits of supplementation against its risk,” such as financial cost, “for better patient care – particularly among those with frank vitamin D deficiency.”

They continue: “Given that vitamin D deficiency is relatively common and vitamin D supplementation is safe, the rationale exists to test the effect of vitamin D supplementation in those with deficiency in large-scale randomized controlled trials.”

However, Dr. Butler-Laporte and Dr. Richards, of the Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, also note the study has several limitations, including the fact that the lifetime exposure to lower vitamin D levels captured by Mendelian randomization may result in larger effect sizes than in conventional trials.
 

Prior RCTS underpowered to detect effects of vitamin D supplements

“There are several potential mechanisms by which vitamin D could be protective for cardiovascular mortality, including mechanisms linking low vitamin D status with hyperparathyroidism and low serum calcium and phosphate,” write Dr. Burgess of the MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge (England), and coauthors.

They also highlight that vitamin D is “further implicated in endothelial cell function” and affects the transcription of genes linked to cell division and apoptosis, providing “potential mechanisms implicating vitamin D for cancer.”

The researchers note that, while epidemiologic studies have “consistently” found a link between 25(OH)D levels and increased risk of cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality, and other chronic diseases, several large trials of vitamin D supplementation have reported “null results.”

They argue, however, that many of these trials have recruited individuals “irrespective of baseline 25(OH)D concentration” and have been underpowered to detect the effects of supplementation.

To overcome these limitations, the team gathered data from the UK Biobank, the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition Cardiovascular Disease (EPIC-CVD) study, 31 studies from the Vitamin D Studies Collaboration (VitDSC), and two Copenhagen population-based studies.

They first performed an observational study that included 384,721 individuals from the UK Biobank and 26,336 from EPIC-CVD who had a valid 25(OH)D measurement and no previously known cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Researchers also included 67,992 participants from the VitDSC studies who did not have previously known cardiovascular disease. They analyzed 25(OH)D concentrations, conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and major incident cardiovascular morbidity and mortality using individual participant data.

The results showed that, at low 25(OH)D concentrations, there was an inverse association between 25(OH)D and incident CHD, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

Next, the team conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis on 333,002 individuals from the UK Biobank and 26,336 from EPIC-CVD who were of European ancestry and had both a valid 25(OH)D measurement and genetic data that passed quality-control steps.

Information on 31,362 participants in the Copenhagen population-based studies was also included, giving a total of 386,406 individuals, of whom 33,546 had CHD, 18,166 had a stroke, and 27,885 died.

The mean age of participants ranged from 54.8 to 57.5 years, and between 53.4% and 55.4% were female.
 

Up to 7% of study participants were vitamin D deficient

The 25(OH)D analysis indicated that 3.9% of UK Biobank and 3.7% of Copenhagen study participants were deficient, compared with 6.9% in EPIC-CVD.

Across the full range of 25(OH)D concentrations, there was no significant association between genetically predicted 25(OH)D levels and CHD, stroke, or all-cause mortality.

However, restricting the analysis to individuals deemed vitamin D deficient (25[OH]D concentration < 25 nmol/L) revealed there was “strong evidence” for an inverse association with all-cause mortality, at an odds ratio per 10 nmol/L increase in genetically predicted 25(OH)D concentration of 0.69 (P < .0001), the team notes.

There were also nonsignificant associations between being in the deficient stratum and CHD, at an odds ratio of 0.89 (P = .14), and stroke, at an odds ratio of 0.85 (P = .09).

Further analysis suggests the association between 25(OH)D concentrations and all-cause mortality has a “clear threshold shape,” the researchers say, with evidence of an inverse association at concentrations below 40 nmol/L and null associations above that threshold.

They acknowledge, however, that their study has several potential limitations, including the assumption in their Mendelian randomization that the “only causal pathway from the genetic variants to the outcome is via 25(OH)D concentrations.”

Moreover, the genetic variants may affect 25(OH)D concentrations in a different way from “dietary supplementation or other clinical interventions.”

They also concede that their study was limited to middle-aged participants of European ancestries, which means the findings “might not be applicable to other populations.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Health Data Research UK, Cancer Research UK, and International Agency for Research on Cancer. Dr. Burgess has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

There is a significant inverse relationship between concentrations of circulating 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) and all-cause mortality, but only in people with vitamin D deficiency, suggests a new large-scale analysis.

Data on more than 380,000 participants gathered from 35 studies showed that, overall, there is no significant relationship between 25(OH)D concentrations, a clinical indicator of vitamin D status, and the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, or all-cause death, in a Mendelian randomization analysis.

However, Stephen Burgess, PhD, and colleagues showed that, in vitamin D–deficient individuals, each 10 nmol/L increase in 25(OH)D concentrations reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 31%.

The research, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, also suggests there was a nonsignificant link between 25(OH)D concentrations and stroke and CHD, but again, only in vitamin D deficient individuals.

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Butler-Laporte, MD, and J. Brent Richards, MD, praise the researchers on their study methodology.

They add that the results “could have important public health and clinical consequences” and will “allow clinicians to better weigh the potential benefits of supplementation against its risk,” such as financial cost, “for better patient care – particularly among those with frank vitamin D deficiency.”

They continue: “Given that vitamin D deficiency is relatively common and vitamin D supplementation is safe, the rationale exists to test the effect of vitamin D supplementation in those with deficiency in large-scale randomized controlled trials.”

However, Dr. Butler-Laporte and Dr. Richards, of the Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, also note the study has several limitations, including the fact that the lifetime exposure to lower vitamin D levels captured by Mendelian randomization may result in larger effect sizes than in conventional trials.
 

Prior RCTS underpowered to detect effects of vitamin D supplements

“There are several potential mechanisms by which vitamin D could be protective for cardiovascular mortality, including mechanisms linking low vitamin D status with hyperparathyroidism and low serum calcium and phosphate,” write Dr. Burgess of the MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge (England), and coauthors.

They also highlight that vitamin D is “further implicated in endothelial cell function” and affects the transcription of genes linked to cell division and apoptosis, providing “potential mechanisms implicating vitamin D for cancer.”

The researchers note that, while epidemiologic studies have “consistently” found a link between 25(OH)D levels and increased risk of cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality, and other chronic diseases, several large trials of vitamin D supplementation have reported “null results.”

They argue, however, that many of these trials have recruited individuals “irrespective of baseline 25(OH)D concentration” and have been underpowered to detect the effects of supplementation.

To overcome these limitations, the team gathered data from the UK Biobank, the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition Cardiovascular Disease (EPIC-CVD) study, 31 studies from the Vitamin D Studies Collaboration (VitDSC), and two Copenhagen population-based studies.

They first performed an observational study that included 384,721 individuals from the UK Biobank and 26,336 from EPIC-CVD who had a valid 25(OH)D measurement and no previously known cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Researchers also included 67,992 participants from the VitDSC studies who did not have previously known cardiovascular disease. They analyzed 25(OH)D concentrations, conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and major incident cardiovascular morbidity and mortality using individual participant data.

The results showed that, at low 25(OH)D concentrations, there was an inverse association between 25(OH)D and incident CHD, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

Next, the team conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis on 333,002 individuals from the UK Biobank and 26,336 from EPIC-CVD who were of European ancestry and had both a valid 25(OH)D measurement and genetic data that passed quality-control steps.

Information on 31,362 participants in the Copenhagen population-based studies was also included, giving a total of 386,406 individuals, of whom 33,546 had CHD, 18,166 had a stroke, and 27,885 died.

The mean age of participants ranged from 54.8 to 57.5 years, and between 53.4% and 55.4% were female.
 

Up to 7% of study participants were vitamin D deficient

The 25(OH)D analysis indicated that 3.9% of UK Biobank and 3.7% of Copenhagen study participants were deficient, compared with 6.9% in EPIC-CVD.

Across the full range of 25(OH)D concentrations, there was no significant association between genetically predicted 25(OH)D levels and CHD, stroke, or all-cause mortality.

However, restricting the analysis to individuals deemed vitamin D deficient (25[OH]D concentration < 25 nmol/L) revealed there was “strong evidence” for an inverse association with all-cause mortality, at an odds ratio per 10 nmol/L increase in genetically predicted 25(OH)D concentration of 0.69 (P < .0001), the team notes.

There were also nonsignificant associations between being in the deficient stratum and CHD, at an odds ratio of 0.89 (P = .14), and stroke, at an odds ratio of 0.85 (P = .09).

Further analysis suggests the association between 25(OH)D concentrations and all-cause mortality has a “clear threshold shape,” the researchers say, with evidence of an inverse association at concentrations below 40 nmol/L and null associations above that threshold.

They acknowledge, however, that their study has several potential limitations, including the assumption in their Mendelian randomization that the “only causal pathway from the genetic variants to the outcome is via 25(OH)D concentrations.”

Moreover, the genetic variants may affect 25(OH)D concentrations in a different way from “dietary supplementation or other clinical interventions.”

They also concede that their study was limited to middle-aged participants of European ancestries, which means the findings “might not be applicable to other populations.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Health Data Research UK, Cancer Research UK, and International Agency for Research on Cancer. Dr. Burgess has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

Daily aspirin is associated with new onset heart failure independent of other risk factors, according to data derived from a database with follow-up from more than 30,000 patients who did not have HF when they were enrolled.

Patrice Wendling/MDedge News

These data are not relevant to primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular events but “refer only to starting aspirin for secondary prevention of HF in patients at high risk of HF or with symptomatic HF,” according to the senior investigator, Jan A. Staessen, MD, PhD, professor emeritus at the University of Leuven (Belgium).

In data from 30,827 patients at risk for HF enrolled in six observational studies, the hazard ratio (HR) for developing HF among those taking daily aspirin at baseline relative to those who were not was 1.26 (P ≤ .001) over 5.3 years of follow-up. In the 22,690 patients without a prior history cardiovascular disease (CVD), the HF risk increase for exposure to daily aspirin was about the same (HR 1.27; P = .001).

This study was launched because multiple conflicting studies have made the relationship between aspirin and HF risk unclear, according to the multinational team of authors, whose finding were published in ESC Heart Failure.

In principle, HF is recognized as a prothrombotic condition for which an antithrombotic therapy such as aspirin would be expected to have a protective role, but the investigators pointed out that the evidence is mixed. In a population-based Danish study of 12,277 patients with new-onset HF, for example, there was no relationship seen between aspirin use and a reduction in the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

Aspirin use linked to HF admissions

“Interestingly, this study reported that aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of readmissions for HF,” wrote the authors of the newly published data. “Uncertainty on aspirin use has been reflected in current guideline recommendations,” they added.

The population studied was drawn from the HOMAGE database, which has collated data on 46,437 participants in 21 studies. After the exclusion of studies with patients who already had HF as well as studies without information on HF incidence over time, six studies with 30,827 participants provided the basis for this analysis.

One study, ASCOT, which was randomized and blinded, served as the derivation data set. The remaining five studies, FLEMENGHO, HEALTH ABC, HULL LIFE LAB, PREDICTOR, and PROSPER, served as the validation data set.

In addition to identifying participants as aspirin users or nonusers at baseline, all of the studies had detailed baseline data on a wide variety of patient characteristics and risk factors, such as body mass index, blood cholesterol levels, blood glucose concentrations, blood pressure, and creatinine.

No patient in any trial was on an antithrombotic therapy other than aspirin at baseline.

Of the minority of patients with CVD at baseline, more than 80% had coronary heart disease. Only 2.8% of the total population had a prior myocardial infarction. In the study population overall, most (86%) had hypertension, and there was a sizeable proportion with diabetes (22%). The average age was 67 years, and 34% were women.
 

HF incidence on aspirin: 14.5/1000 person-years

Overall, the incidence rate of HF per 1,000 person-years for the entire population before adjustment was 14.5 in the group on daily aspirin versus 5.9 in the non-aspirin group. These absolute rates were lower in the discovery data set than in the validation set, but the relative differences in HF incidence rates for those who were versus those who were not on aspirin at baseline were similar.

Numerous sensitivity analyses supported the basic conclusions. This not only included one omitting patients with a history of CVD, but another that excluded patients who developed HF within the first 2 years. Stratified analyses looking for overall consistency across variables showed increased risk of new onset heart failure among those taking daily aspirin regardless of relative age, body weight, or blood pressure levels.

The most important limitation of this study was that it evaluated data taken from studies not originally designed to test the study hypothesis. In addition, only baseline data were available, so the drugs that patients took over the course of follow-up are unknown. However, the authors believe these data have a clinical message.

Given the consistency of these results, “our observations suggest that aspirin should be prescribed with caution in patients at risk of HF or having HF,” the investigators concluded.

“If such treatment is initiated in these patients, use low-dose aspirin,” Dr. Staessen told this news organization.
 

Aspirin for CVD versus HF risk

Many patients take low-dose aspirin to prevent the types of cardiovascular events, such as MI, that lead to heart failure. In attempting to address a controversy regarding aspirin and risk of new onset heart failure, it appears to create another regarding CVD risk reduction.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston, expressed some reluctance in applying these data to routine practice.

“It is important to emphasize that this pooled analysis draws upon six observational studies, not randomized trials of aspirin,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He called these findings “provocative,” but he said they “would need to be confirmed in databases of already completed randomized trials of aspirin versus a control before being actionable.” For Dr. Bhatt, one obstacle to a change in practice based on these data is that, “to my knowledge, no such signal [of a relationship between aspirin and incident heart failure] exists in the cumulative randomized data.”

Dr. Staessen reports no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PLx Pharma, for which he performs aspirin-related research.
 

Daily aspirin is associated with new onset heart failure independent of other risk factors, according to data derived from a database with follow-up from more than 30,000 patients who did not have HF when they were enrolled.

Patrice Wendling/MDedge News

These data are not relevant to primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular events but “refer only to starting aspirin for secondary prevention of HF in patients at high risk of HF or with symptomatic HF,” according to the senior investigator, Jan A. Staessen, MD, PhD, professor emeritus at the University of Leuven (Belgium).

In data from 30,827 patients at risk for HF enrolled in six observational studies, the hazard ratio (HR) for developing HF among those taking daily aspirin at baseline relative to those who were not was 1.26 (P ≤ .001) over 5.3 years of follow-up. In the 22,690 patients without a prior history cardiovascular disease (CVD), the HF risk increase for exposure to daily aspirin was about the same (HR 1.27; P = .001).

This study was launched because multiple conflicting studies have made the relationship between aspirin and HF risk unclear, according to the multinational team of authors, whose finding were published in ESC Heart Failure.

In principle, HF is recognized as a prothrombotic condition for which an antithrombotic therapy such as aspirin would be expected to have a protective role, but the investigators pointed out that the evidence is mixed. In a population-based Danish study of 12,277 patients with new-onset HF, for example, there was no relationship seen between aspirin use and a reduction in the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

Aspirin use linked to HF admissions

“Interestingly, this study reported that aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of readmissions for HF,” wrote the authors of the newly published data. “Uncertainty on aspirin use has been reflected in current guideline recommendations,” they added.

The population studied was drawn from the HOMAGE database, which has collated data on 46,437 participants in 21 studies. After the exclusion of studies with patients who already had HF as well as studies without information on HF incidence over time, six studies with 30,827 participants provided the basis for this analysis.

One study, ASCOT, which was randomized and blinded, served as the derivation data set. The remaining five studies, FLEMENGHO, HEALTH ABC, HULL LIFE LAB, PREDICTOR, and PROSPER, served as the validation data set.

In addition to identifying participants as aspirin users or nonusers at baseline, all of the studies had detailed baseline data on a wide variety of patient characteristics and risk factors, such as body mass index, blood cholesterol levels, blood glucose concentrations, blood pressure, and creatinine.

No patient in any trial was on an antithrombotic therapy other than aspirin at baseline.

Of the minority of patients with CVD at baseline, more than 80% had coronary heart disease. Only 2.8% of the total population had a prior myocardial infarction. In the study population overall, most (86%) had hypertension, and there was a sizeable proportion with diabetes (22%). The average age was 67 years, and 34% were women.
 

HF incidence on aspirin: 14.5/1000 person-years

Overall, the incidence rate of HF per 1,000 person-years for the entire population before adjustment was 14.5 in the group on daily aspirin versus 5.9 in the non-aspirin group. These absolute rates were lower in the discovery data set than in the validation set, but the relative differences in HF incidence rates for those who were versus those who were not on aspirin at baseline were similar.

Numerous sensitivity analyses supported the basic conclusions. This not only included one omitting patients with a history of CVD, but another that excluded patients who developed HF within the first 2 years. Stratified analyses looking for overall consistency across variables showed increased risk of new onset heart failure among those taking daily aspirin regardless of relative age, body weight, or blood pressure levels.

The most important limitation of this study was that it evaluated data taken from studies not originally designed to test the study hypothesis. In addition, only baseline data were available, so the drugs that patients took over the course of follow-up are unknown. However, the authors believe these data have a clinical message.

Given the consistency of these results, “our observations suggest that aspirin should be prescribed with caution in patients at risk of HF or having HF,” the investigators concluded.

“If such treatment is initiated in these patients, use low-dose aspirin,” Dr. Staessen told this news organization.
 

Aspirin for CVD versus HF risk

Many patients take low-dose aspirin to prevent the types of cardiovascular events, such as MI, that lead to heart failure. In attempting to address a controversy regarding aspirin and risk of new onset heart failure, it appears to create another regarding CVD risk reduction.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston, expressed some reluctance in applying these data to routine practice.

“It is important to emphasize that this pooled analysis draws upon six observational studies, not randomized trials of aspirin,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He called these findings “provocative,” but he said they “would need to be confirmed in databases of already completed randomized trials of aspirin versus a control before being actionable.” For Dr. Bhatt, one obstacle to a change in practice based on these data is that, “to my knowledge, no such signal [of a relationship between aspirin and incident heart failure] exists in the cumulative randomized data.”

Dr. Staessen reports no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PLx Pharma, for which he performs aspirin-related research.
 

Daily aspirin is associated with new onset heart failure independent of other risk factors, according to data derived from a database with follow-up from more than 30,000 patients who did not have HF when they were enrolled.

Patrice Wendling/MDedge News

These data are not relevant to primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular events but “refer only to starting aspirin for secondary prevention of HF in patients at high risk of HF or with symptomatic HF,” according to the senior investigator, Jan A. Staessen, MD, PhD, professor emeritus at the University of Leuven (Belgium).

In data from 30,827 patients at risk for HF enrolled in six observational studies, the hazard ratio (HR) for developing HF among those taking daily aspirin at baseline relative to those who were not was 1.26 (P ≤ .001) over 5.3 years of follow-up. In the 22,690 patients without a prior history cardiovascular disease (CVD), the HF risk increase for exposure to daily aspirin was about the same (HR 1.27; P = .001).

This study was launched because multiple conflicting studies have made the relationship between aspirin and HF risk unclear, according to the multinational team of authors, whose finding were published in ESC Heart Failure.

In principle, HF is recognized as a prothrombotic condition for which an antithrombotic therapy such as aspirin would be expected to have a protective role, but the investigators pointed out that the evidence is mixed. In a population-based Danish study of 12,277 patients with new-onset HF, for example, there was no relationship seen between aspirin use and a reduction in the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

Aspirin use linked to HF admissions

“Interestingly, this study reported that aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of readmissions for HF,” wrote the authors of the newly published data. “Uncertainty on aspirin use has been reflected in current guideline recommendations,” they added.

The population studied was drawn from the HOMAGE database, which has collated data on 46,437 participants in 21 studies. After the exclusion of studies with patients who already had HF as well as studies without information on HF incidence over time, six studies with 30,827 participants provided the basis for this analysis.

One study, ASCOT, which was randomized and blinded, served as the derivation data set. The remaining five studies, FLEMENGHO, HEALTH ABC, HULL LIFE LAB, PREDICTOR, and PROSPER, served as the validation data set.

In addition to identifying participants as aspirin users or nonusers at baseline, all of the studies had detailed baseline data on a wide variety of patient characteristics and risk factors, such as body mass index, blood cholesterol levels, blood glucose concentrations, blood pressure, and creatinine.

No patient in any trial was on an antithrombotic therapy other than aspirin at baseline.

Of the minority of patients with CVD at baseline, more than 80% had coronary heart disease. Only 2.8% of the total population had a prior myocardial infarction. In the study population overall, most (86%) had hypertension, and there was a sizeable proportion with diabetes (22%). The average age was 67 years, and 34% were women.
 

HF incidence on aspirin: 14.5/1000 person-years

Overall, the incidence rate of HF per 1,000 person-years for the entire population before adjustment was 14.5 in the group on daily aspirin versus 5.9 in the non-aspirin group. These absolute rates were lower in the discovery data set than in the validation set, but the relative differences in HF incidence rates for those who were versus those who were not on aspirin at baseline were similar.

Numerous sensitivity analyses supported the basic conclusions. This not only included one omitting patients with a history of CVD, but another that excluded patients who developed HF within the first 2 years. Stratified analyses looking for overall consistency across variables showed increased risk of new onset heart failure among those taking daily aspirin regardless of relative age, body weight, or blood pressure levels.

The most important limitation of this study was that it evaluated data taken from studies not originally designed to test the study hypothesis. In addition, only baseline data were available, so the drugs that patients took over the course of follow-up are unknown. However, the authors believe these data have a clinical message.

Given the consistency of these results, “our observations suggest that aspirin should be prescribed with caution in patients at risk of HF or having HF,” the investigators concluded.

“If such treatment is initiated in these patients, use low-dose aspirin,” Dr. Staessen told this news organization.
 

Aspirin for CVD versus HF risk

Many patients take low-dose aspirin to prevent the types of cardiovascular events, such as MI, that lead to heart failure. In attempting to address a controversy regarding aspirin and risk of new onset heart failure, it appears to create another regarding CVD risk reduction.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston, expressed some reluctance in applying these data to routine practice.

“It is important to emphasize that this pooled analysis draws upon six observational studies, not randomized trials of aspirin,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He called these findings “provocative,” but he said they “would need to be confirmed in databases of already completed randomized trials of aspirin versus a control before being actionable.” For Dr. Bhatt, one obstacle to a change in practice based on these data is that, “to my knowledge, no such signal [of a relationship between aspirin and incident heart failure] exists in the cumulative randomized data.”

Dr. Staessen reports no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PLx Pharma, for which he performs aspirin-related research.
 

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the effects of intermittent energy restriction (IER) with those of continuous energy restriction (CER) on blood pressure control and weight loss in overweight and obese patients with hypertension during a 6-month period.

Design. Randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. The trial was conducted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University from June 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Chinese adults were recruited using advertisements and flyers posted in the hospital and local communities. Prior to participation in study activities, all participants gave informed consent prior to recruitment and were provided compensation in the form of a $38 voucher at 3 and 6 months for their time for participating in the study.

The main inclusion criteria were patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years, hypertension, and body mass index (BMI) ranging from 24 to 40 kg/m². The exclusion criteria were systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 120 mmHg, type 1 or 2 diabetes with a history of severe hypoglycemic episodes, pregnancy or breastfeeding, usage of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, weight loss > 5 kg within the past 3 months or previous weight loss surgery, and inability to adhere to the dietary protocol.

Of the 294 participants screened for eligibility, 205 were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the IER group (n = 102) or the CER group (n = 103), stratified by sex and BMI (as overweight or obese). All participants were required to have a stable medication regimen and weight in the 3 months prior to enrollment and not to use weight-loss drugs or vitamin supplements for the duration of the study. Researchers and participants were not blinded to the study group assignment.

Interventions. Participants randomly assigned to the IER group followed a 5:2 eating pattern: a very-low-energy diet of 500-600 kcal for 2 days of the week along with their usual diet for the other 5 days. The 2 days of calorie restriction could be consecutive or nonconsecutive, with a minimum of 0.8 g supplemental protein per kg of body weight per day, in accordance with the 2016 Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents. The CER group was advised to consume 1000 kcal/day for women and 1200 kcal/day for men on a 7-day energy restriction. That is, they were prescribed a daily 25% restriction based on the general principles of a Mediterranean-type diet (30% fat, 45-50% carbohydrate, and 20-25% protein).

Both groups received dietary education from a qualified dietitian and were recommended to maintain their current daily activity levels throughout the trial. Written dietary information brochures with portion advice and sample meal plans were provided to improve compliance in each group. All participants received a digital cooking scale to weigh foods to ensure accuracy of intake and were required to keep a food diary while following the recommended recipe on 2 days/week during calorie restriction to help with adherence. No food was provided. All participants were followed up by regular outpatient visits to both cardiologists and dietitians once a month. Diet checklists, activity schedules, and weight were reviewed to assess compliance with dietary advice at each visit.

Of note, participants were encouraged to measure and record their BP twice daily, and if 2 consecutive BP readings were < 110/70 mmHg and/or accompanied by hypotensive episodes with symptoms (dizziness, nausea, headache, and fatigue), they were asked to contact the investigators directly. Antihypertensive medication changes were then made in consultation with cardiologists. In addition, a medication management protocol (ie, doses of antidiabetic medications, including insulin and sulfonylurea) was designed to avoid hypoglycemia. Medication could be reduced in the CER group based on the basal dose at the endocrinologist’s discretion. In the IER group, insulin and sulfonylureas were discontinued on calorie restriction days only, and long-acting insulin was discontinued the night before the IER day. Insulin was not to be resumed until a full day’s caloric intake was achieved.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcomes of this study were changes in BP and weight (measured using an automatic digital sphygmomanometer and an electronic scale), and the secondary outcomes were changes in body composition (assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning), as well as glycosylated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels and blood lipids after 6 months. All outcome measures were recorded at baseline and at each monthly visit. Incidence rates of hypoglycemia were based on blood glucose (defined as blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) and/or symptomatic hypoglycemia (symptoms of sweating, paleness, dizziness, and confusion). Two cardiologists who were blind to the patients’ diet condition measured and recorded all pertinent clinical parameters and adjudicated serious adverse events.

Data were compared using independent-samples t-tests or the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables, and Pearson’s χ² test or Fisher’s exact test for categorial variables as appropriate. Repeated-measures ANOVA via a linear mixed model was employed to test the effects of diet, time, and their interaction. In subgroup analyses, differential effects of the intervention on the primary outcomes were evaluated with respect to patients’ level of education, domicile, and sex based on the statistical significance of the interaction term for the subgroup of interest in the multivariate model. Analyses were performed based on completers and on an intention-to-treat principle.

Main results. Among the 205 randomized participants, 118 were women and 87 were men; mean (SD) age was 50.5 (8.8) years; mean (SD) BMI was 28.7 (2.6); mean (SD) SBP was 143 (10) mmHg; and mean (SD) DBP was 91 (9) mmHg. At the end of the 6-month intervention, 173 (84.4%) completed the study (IER group: n = 88; CER group: n = 85). Both groups had similar dropout rates at 6 months (IER group: 14 participants [13.7%]; CER group: 18 participants [17.5%]; P = .83) and were well matched for baseline characteristics except for triglyceride levels.

In the completers analysis, both groups experienced significant reductions in weight (mean [SEM]), but there was no difference between treatment groups (−7.2 [0.6] kg in the IER group vs −7.1 [0.6] kg in the CER group; diet by time P = .72). Similarly, the change in SBP and DBP achieved was statistically significant over time, but there was also no difference between the dietary interventions (−8 [0.7] mmHg in the IER group vs −8 [0.6] mmHg in the CER group, diet by time P = .68; −6 [0.6] mmHg in the IER group vs −6 [0.5] mmHg in the CER group, diet by time P = .53]. Subgroup analyses of the association of the intervention with weight, SBP and DBP by sex, education, and domicile showed no significant between-group differences.

All measures of body composition decreased significantly at 6 months with both groups experiencing comparable reductions in total fat mass (−5.5 [0.6] kg in the IER group vs −4.8 [0.5] kg in the CER group, diet by time P = .08) and android fat mass (−1.1 [0.2] kg in the IER group vs −0.8 [0.2] kg in the CER group, diet by time P = .16). Of note, participants in the CER group lost significantly more total fat-free mass than did participants in the IER group (mean [SEM], −2.3 [0.2] kg vs −1.7 [0.2] kg; P = .03], and there was a trend toward a greater change in total fat mass in the IER group (P = .08). The secondary outcome of mean (SEM) HbA_1c (−0.2% [0.1%]) and blood lipid levels (triglyceride level, −1.0 [0.3] mmol/L; total cholesterol level, −0.9 [0.2] mmol/L; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, −0.9 [0.2 mmol/L; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, 0.7 [0.3] mmol/L] improved with weight loss (P < .05), with no differences between groups (diet by time P > .05).

The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss and blood pressure control: both groups experienced significant reductions in weight, SBP, and DBP, but with no difference between treatment groups – mean (SEM) weight change with IER was −7.0 (0.6) kg vs −6.8 (0.6) kg with CER; the mean (SEM) SBP with IER was −7 (0.7) mmHg vs −7 (0.6) mmHg with CER; and the mean (SEM) DBP with IER was −6 (0.5) mmHg vs −5 (0.5) mmHg with CER, (diet by time P = .62, .39, and .41, respectively). There were favorable improvements in body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels, with no differences between groups.

Conclusion. A 2-day severe energy restriction with 5 days of habitual eating compared to 7 days of CER provides an acceptable alternative for BP control and weight loss in overweight and obese individuals with hypertension after 6 months. IER may offer a useful alternative strategy for this population, who find continuous weight-loss diets too difficult to maintain.

Commentary

Globally, obesity represents a major health challenge as it substantially increases the risk of diseases such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease.¹ Lifestyle modifications, including weight loss and increased physical activity, are recommended in major guidelines as a first-step intervention in the treatment of hypertensive patients.² However, lifestyle and behavioral interventions aimed at reducing calorie intake through low-calorie dieting is challenging as it is dependent on individual motivation and adherence to a strict, continuous protocol. Further, CER strategies have limited effectiveness because complex and persistent hormonal, metabolic, and neurochemical adaptations defend against weight loss and promote weight regain.^3-4 IER has drawn attention in the popular media as an alternative to CER due to its feasibility and even potential for higher rates of compliance.⁵

This study adds to the literature as it is the first randomized controlled trial (to the knowledge of the authors at the time of publication) to explore 2 forms of energy restriction – CER and IER – and their impact on weight loss, BP, body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels in overweight and obese patients with high blood pressure. Results from this study showed that IER is as effective as, but not superior to, CER (in terms of the outcomes measures assessed). Specifically, findings highlighted that the 5:2 diet is an effective strategy and noninferior to that of daily calorie restriction for BP and weight control. In addition, both weight loss and BP reduction were greater in a subgroup of obese compared with overweight participants, which indicates that obese populations may benefit more from energy restriction. As the authors highlight, this study both aligns with and expands on current related literature.

This study has both strengths and limitations, especially with regard to the design and data analysis strategy. A key strength is the randomized controlled trial design which enables increased internal validity and decreases several sources of bias, including selection bias and confounding. In addition, it was also designed as a pragmatic trial, with the protocol reflecting efforts to replicate the real-world environment by not supplying meal replacements or food. Notably, only 9 patients could not comply with the protocol, indicating that acceptability of the diet protocol was high. However, as this was only a 6-month long study, further studies are needed to determine whether a 5:2 diet is sustainable (and effective) in the long-term compared with CER, which the authors highlight. The study was also adequately powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in weight loss and SBP, and appropriate analyses were performed on both the basis of completers and on an intention-to-treat principle. However, further studies are needed that are adequately powered to also detect clinically meaningful differences in the other measures, ie, body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels. Importantly, generalizability of findings from this study is limited as the study population comprises only Chinese adults, predominately middle-aged, overweight, and had mildly to moderately elevated SBP and DBP, and excluded diabetic patients. Thus, findings are not necessarily applicable to individuals with highly elevated blood pressure or poorly controlled diabetes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Results of this study demonstrated that IER is an effective alternative diet strategy for weight loss and blood pressure control in overweight and obese patients with hypertension and is comparable to CER. This is relevant for clinical practice as IER may be easier to maintain in this population compared to continuous weight-loss diets. Importantly, both types of calorie restriction require clinical oversight as medication changes and periodic monitoring of hypotensive and hypoglycemic episodes are needed. Clinicians should consider what is feasible and sustainable for their patients when recommending intermittent energy restriction.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the effects of intermittent energy restriction (IER) with those of continuous energy restriction (CER) on blood pressure control and weight loss in overweight and obese patients with hypertension during a 6-month period.

Design. Randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. The trial was conducted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University from June 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Chinese adults were recruited using advertisements and flyers posted in the hospital and local communities. Prior to participation in study activities, all participants gave informed consent prior to recruitment and were provided compensation in the form of a $38 voucher at 3 and 6 months for their time for participating in the study.

The main inclusion criteria were patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years, hypertension, and body mass index (BMI) ranging from 24 to 40 kg/m². The exclusion criteria were systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 120 mmHg, type 1 or 2 diabetes with a history of severe hypoglycemic episodes, pregnancy or breastfeeding, usage of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, weight loss > 5 kg within the past 3 months or previous weight loss surgery, and inability to adhere to the dietary protocol.

Of the 294 participants screened for eligibility, 205 were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the IER group (n = 102) or the CER group (n = 103), stratified by sex and BMI (as overweight or obese). All participants were required to have a stable medication regimen and weight in the 3 months prior to enrollment and not to use weight-loss drugs or vitamin supplements for the duration of the study. Researchers and participants were not blinded to the study group assignment.

Interventions. Participants randomly assigned to the IER group followed a 5:2 eating pattern: a very-low-energy diet of 500-600 kcal for 2 days of the week along with their usual diet for the other 5 days. The 2 days of calorie restriction could be consecutive or nonconsecutive, with a minimum of 0.8 g supplemental protein per kg of body weight per day, in accordance with the 2016 Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents. The CER group was advised to consume 1000 kcal/day for women and 1200 kcal/day for men on a 7-day energy restriction. That is, they were prescribed a daily 25% restriction based on the general principles of a Mediterranean-type diet (30% fat, 45-50% carbohydrate, and 20-25% protein).

Both groups received dietary education from a qualified dietitian and were recommended to maintain their current daily activity levels throughout the trial. Written dietary information brochures with portion advice and sample meal plans were provided to improve compliance in each group. All participants received a digital cooking scale to weigh foods to ensure accuracy of intake and were required to keep a food diary while following the recommended recipe on 2 days/week during calorie restriction to help with adherence. No food was provided. All participants were followed up by regular outpatient visits to both cardiologists and dietitians once a month. Diet checklists, activity schedules, and weight were reviewed to assess compliance with dietary advice at each visit.

Of note, participants were encouraged to measure and record their BP twice daily, and if 2 consecutive BP readings were < 110/70 mmHg and/or accompanied by hypotensive episodes with symptoms (dizziness, nausea, headache, and fatigue), they were asked to contact the investigators directly. Antihypertensive medication changes were then made in consultation with cardiologists. In addition, a medication management protocol (ie, doses of antidiabetic medications, including insulin and sulfonylurea) was designed to avoid hypoglycemia. Medication could be reduced in the CER group based on the basal dose at the endocrinologist’s discretion. In the IER group, insulin and sulfonylureas were discontinued on calorie restriction days only, and long-acting insulin was discontinued the night before the IER day. Insulin was not to be resumed until a full day’s caloric intake was achieved.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcomes of this study were changes in BP and weight (measured using an automatic digital sphygmomanometer and an electronic scale), and the secondary outcomes were changes in body composition (assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning), as well as glycosylated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels and blood lipids after 6 months. All outcome measures were recorded at baseline and at each monthly visit. Incidence rates of hypoglycemia were based on blood glucose (defined as blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) and/or symptomatic hypoglycemia (symptoms of sweating, paleness, dizziness, and confusion). Two cardiologists who were blind to the patients’ diet condition measured and recorded all pertinent clinical parameters and adjudicated serious adverse events.

Data were compared using independent-samples t-tests or the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables, and Pearson’s χ² test or Fisher’s exact test for categorial variables as appropriate. Repeated-measures ANOVA via a linear mixed model was employed to test the effects of diet, time, and their interaction. In subgroup analyses, differential effects of the intervention on the primary outcomes were evaluated with respect to patients’ level of education, domicile, and sex based on the statistical significance of the interaction term for the subgroup of interest in the multivariate model. Analyses were performed based on completers and on an intention-to-treat principle.

Main results. Among the 205 randomized participants, 118 were women and 87 were men; mean (SD) age was 50.5 (8.8) years; mean (SD) BMI was 28.7 (2.6); mean (SD) SBP was 143 (10) mmHg; and mean (SD) DBP was 91 (9) mmHg. At the end of the 6-month intervention, 173 (84.4%) completed the study (IER group: n = 88; CER group: n = 85). Both groups had similar dropout rates at 6 months (IER group: 14 participants [13.7%]; CER group: 18 participants [17.5%]; P = .83) and were well matched for baseline characteristics except for triglyceride levels.

In the completers analysis, both groups experienced significant reductions in weight (mean [SEM]), but there was no difference between treatment groups (−7.2 [0.6] kg in the IER group vs −7.1 [0.6] kg in the CER group; diet by time P = .72). Similarly, the change in SBP and DBP achieved was statistically significant over time, but there was also no difference between the dietary interventions (−8 [0.7] mmHg in the IER group vs −8 [0.6] mmHg in the CER group, diet by time P = .68; −6 [0.6] mmHg in the IER group vs −6 [0.5] mmHg in the CER group, diet by time P = .53]. Subgroup analyses of the association of the intervention with weight, SBP and DBP by sex, education, and domicile showed no significant between-group differences.

All measures of body composition decreased significantly at 6 months with both groups experiencing comparable reductions in total fat mass (−5.5 [0.6] kg in the IER group vs −4.8 [0.5] kg in the CER group, diet by time P = .08) and android fat mass (−1.1 [0.2] kg in the IER group vs −0.8 [0.2] kg in the CER group, diet by time P = .16). Of note, participants in the CER group lost significantly more total fat-free mass than did participants in the IER group (mean [SEM], −2.3 [0.2] kg vs −1.7 [0.2] kg; P = .03], and there was a trend toward a greater change in total fat mass in the IER group (P = .08). The secondary outcome of mean (SEM) HbA_1c (−0.2% [0.1%]) and blood lipid levels (triglyceride level, −1.0 [0.3] mmol/L; total cholesterol level, −0.9 [0.2] mmol/L; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, −0.9 [0.2 mmol/L; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, 0.7 [0.3] mmol/L] improved with weight loss (P < .05), with no differences between groups (diet by time P > .05).

The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss and blood pressure control: both groups experienced significant reductions in weight, SBP, and DBP, but with no difference between treatment groups – mean (SEM) weight change with IER was −7.0 (0.6) kg vs −6.8 (0.6) kg with CER; the mean (SEM) SBP with IER was −7 (0.7) mmHg vs −7 (0.6) mmHg with CER; and the mean (SEM) DBP with IER was −6 (0.5) mmHg vs −5 (0.5) mmHg with CER, (diet by time P = .62, .39, and .41, respectively). There were favorable improvements in body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels, with no differences between groups.

Conclusion. A 2-day severe energy restriction with 5 days of habitual eating compared to 7 days of CER provides an acceptable alternative for BP control and weight loss in overweight and obese individuals with hypertension after 6 months. IER may offer a useful alternative strategy for this population, who find continuous weight-loss diets too difficult to maintain.

Commentary

Globally, obesity represents a major health challenge as it substantially increases the risk of diseases such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease.¹ Lifestyle modifications, including weight loss and increased physical activity, are recommended in major guidelines as a first-step intervention in the treatment of hypertensive patients.² However, lifestyle and behavioral interventions aimed at reducing calorie intake through low-calorie dieting is challenging as it is dependent on individual motivation and adherence to a strict, continuous protocol. Further, CER strategies have limited effectiveness because complex and persistent hormonal, metabolic, and neurochemical adaptations defend against weight loss and promote weight regain.^3-4 IER has drawn attention in the popular media as an alternative to CER due to its feasibility and even potential for higher rates of compliance.⁵

This study adds to the literature as it is the first randomized controlled trial (to the knowledge of the authors at the time of publication) to explore 2 forms of energy restriction – CER and IER – and their impact on weight loss, BP, body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels in overweight and obese patients with high blood pressure. Results from this study showed that IER is as effective as, but not superior to, CER (in terms of the outcomes measures assessed). Specifically, findings highlighted that the 5:2 diet is an effective strategy and noninferior to that of daily calorie restriction for BP and weight control. In addition, both weight loss and BP reduction were greater in a subgroup of obese compared with overweight participants, which indicates that obese populations may benefit more from energy restriction. As the authors highlight, this study both aligns with and expands on current related literature.

This study has both strengths and limitations, especially with regard to the design and data analysis strategy. A key strength is the randomized controlled trial design which enables increased internal validity and decreases several sources of bias, including selection bias and confounding. In addition, it was also designed as a pragmatic trial, with the protocol reflecting efforts to replicate the real-world environment by not supplying meal replacements or food. Notably, only 9 patients could not comply with the protocol, indicating that acceptability of the diet protocol was high. However, as this was only a 6-month long study, further studies are needed to determine whether a 5:2 diet is sustainable (and effective) in the long-term compared with CER, which the authors highlight. The study was also adequately powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in weight loss and SBP, and appropriate analyses were performed on both the basis of completers and on an intention-to-treat principle. However, further studies are needed that are adequately powered to also detect clinically meaningful differences in the other measures, ie, body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels. Importantly, generalizability of findings from this study is limited as the study population comprises only Chinese adults, predominately middle-aged, overweight, and had mildly to moderately elevated SBP and DBP, and excluded diabetic patients. Thus, findings are not necessarily applicable to individuals with highly elevated blood pressure or poorly controlled diabetes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Results of this study demonstrated that IER is an effective alternative diet strategy for weight loss and blood pressure control in overweight and obese patients with hypertension and is comparable to CER. This is relevant for clinical practice as IER may be easier to maintain in this population compared to continuous weight-loss diets. Importantly, both types of calorie restriction require clinical oversight as medication changes and periodic monitoring of hypotensive and hypoglycemic episodes are needed. Clinicians should consider what is feasible and sustainable for their patients when recommending intermittent energy restriction.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the effects of intermittent energy restriction (IER) with those of continuous energy restriction (CER) on blood pressure control and weight loss in overweight and obese patients with hypertension during a 6-month period.

Design. Randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. The trial was conducted at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University from June 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Chinese adults were recruited using advertisements and flyers posted in the hospital and local communities. Prior to participation in study activities, all participants gave informed consent prior to recruitment and were provided compensation in the form of a $38 voucher at 3 and 6 months for their time for participating in the study.

The main inclusion criteria were patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years, hypertension, and body mass index (BMI) ranging from 24 to 40 kg/m². The exclusion criteria were systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 120 mmHg, type 1 or 2 diabetes with a history of severe hypoglycemic episodes, pregnancy or breastfeeding, usage of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, weight loss > 5 kg within the past 3 months or previous weight loss surgery, and inability to adhere to the dietary protocol.

Of the 294 participants screened for eligibility, 205 were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the IER group (n = 102) or the CER group (n = 103), stratified by sex and BMI (as overweight or obese). All participants were required to have a stable medication regimen and weight in the 3 months prior to enrollment and not to use weight-loss drugs or vitamin supplements for the duration of the study. Researchers and participants were not blinded to the study group assignment.

Interventions. Participants randomly assigned to the IER group followed a 5:2 eating pattern: a very-low-energy diet of 500-600 kcal for 2 days of the week along with their usual diet for the other 5 days. The 2 days of calorie restriction could be consecutive or nonconsecutive, with a minimum of 0.8 g supplemental protein per kg of body weight per day, in accordance with the 2016 Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents. The CER group was advised to consume 1000 kcal/day for women and 1200 kcal/day for men on a 7-day energy restriction. That is, they were prescribed a daily 25% restriction based on the general principles of a Mediterranean-type diet (30% fat, 45-50% carbohydrate, and 20-25% protein).

Both groups received dietary education from a qualified dietitian and were recommended to maintain their current daily activity levels throughout the trial. Written dietary information brochures with portion advice and sample meal plans were provided to improve compliance in each group. All participants received a digital cooking scale to weigh foods to ensure accuracy of intake and were required to keep a food diary while following the recommended recipe on 2 days/week during calorie restriction to help with adherence. No food was provided. All participants were followed up by regular outpatient visits to both cardiologists and dietitians once a month. Diet checklists, activity schedules, and weight were reviewed to assess compliance with dietary advice at each visit.

Of note, participants were encouraged to measure and record their BP twice daily, and if 2 consecutive BP readings were < 110/70 mmHg and/or accompanied by hypotensive episodes with symptoms (dizziness, nausea, headache, and fatigue), they were asked to contact the investigators directly. Antihypertensive medication changes were then made in consultation with cardiologists. In addition, a medication management protocol (ie, doses of antidiabetic medications, including insulin and sulfonylurea) was designed to avoid hypoglycemia. Medication could be reduced in the CER group based on the basal dose at the endocrinologist’s discretion. In the IER group, insulin and sulfonylureas were discontinued on calorie restriction days only, and long-acting insulin was discontinued the night before the IER day. Insulin was not to be resumed until a full day’s caloric intake was achieved.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcomes of this study were changes in BP and weight (measured using an automatic digital sphygmomanometer and an electronic scale), and the secondary outcomes were changes in body composition (assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning), as well as glycosylated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels and blood lipids after 6 months. All outcome measures were recorded at baseline and at each monthly visit. Incidence rates of hypoglycemia were based on blood glucose (defined as blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) and/or symptomatic hypoglycemia (symptoms of sweating, paleness, dizziness, and confusion). Two cardiologists who were blind to the patients’ diet condition measured and recorded all pertinent clinical parameters and adjudicated serious adverse events.

Data were compared using independent-samples t-tests or the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables, and Pearson’s χ² test or Fisher’s exact test for categorial variables as appropriate. Repeated-measures ANOVA via a linear mixed model was employed to test the effects of diet, time, and their interaction. In subgroup analyses, differential effects of the intervention on the primary outcomes were evaluated with respect to patients’ level of education, domicile, and sex based on the statistical significance of the interaction term for the subgroup of interest in the multivariate model. Analyses were performed based on completers and on an intention-to-treat principle.

Main results. Among the 205 randomized participants, 118 were women and 87 were men; mean (SD) age was 50.5 (8.8) years; mean (SD) BMI was 28.7 (2.6); mean (SD) SBP was 143 (10) mmHg; and mean (SD) DBP was 91 (9) mmHg. At the end of the 6-month intervention, 173 (84.4%) completed the study (IER group: n = 88; CER group: n = 85). Both groups had similar dropout rates at 6 months (IER group: 14 participants [13.7%]; CER group: 18 participants [17.5%]; P = .83) and were well matched for baseline characteristics except for triglyceride levels.

In the completers analysis, both groups experienced significant reductions in weight (mean [SEM]), but there was no difference between treatment groups (−7.2 [0.6] kg in the IER group vs −7.1 [0.6] kg in the CER group; diet by time P = .72). Similarly, the change in SBP and DBP achieved was statistically significant over time, but there was also no difference between the dietary interventions (−8 [0.7] mmHg in the IER group vs −8 [0.6] mmHg in the CER group, diet by time P = .68; −6 [0.6] mmHg in the IER group vs −6 [0.5] mmHg in the CER group, diet by time P = .53]. Subgroup analyses of the association of the intervention with weight, SBP and DBP by sex, education, and domicile showed no significant between-group differences.

All measures of body composition decreased significantly at 6 months with both groups experiencing comparable reductions in total fat mass (−5.5 [0.6] kg in the IER group vs −4.8 [0.5] kg in the CER group, diet by time P = .08) and android fat mass (−1.1 [0.2] kg in the IER group vs −0.8 [0.2] kg in the CER group, diet by time P = .16). Of note, participants in the CER group lost significantly more total fat-free mass than did participants in the IER group (mean [SEM], −2.3 [0.2] kg vs −1.7 [0.2] kg; P = .03], and there was a trend toward a greater change in total fat mass in the IER group (P = .08). The secondary outcome of mean (SEM) HbA_1c (−0.2% [0.1%]) and blood lipid levels (triglyceride level, −1.0 [0.3] mmol/L; total cholesterol level, −0.9 [0.2] mmol/L; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, −0.9 [0.2 mmol/L; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, 0.7 [0.3] mmol/L] improved with weight loss (P < .05), with no differences between groups (diet by time P > .05).

The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss and blood pressure control: both groups experienced significant reductions in weight, SBP, and DBP, but with no difference between treatment groups – mean (SEM) weight change with IER was −7.0 (0.6) kg vs −6.8 (0.6) kg with CER; the mean (SEM) SBP with IER was −7 (0.7) mmHg vs −7 (0.6) mmHg with CER; and the mean (SEM) DBP with IER was −6 (0.5) mmHg vs −5 (0.5) mmHg with CER, (diet by time P = .62, .39, and .41, respectively). There were favorable improvements in body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels, with no differences between groups.

Conclusion. A 2-day severe energy restriction with 5 days of habitual eating compared to 7 days of CER provides an acceptable alternative for BP control and weight loss in overweight and obese individuals with hypertension after 6 months. IER may offer a useful alternative strategy for this population, who find continuous weight-loss diets too difficult to maintain.

Commentary

Globally, obesity represents a major health challenge as it substantially increases the risk of diseases such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease.¹ Lifestyle modifications, including weight loss and increased physical activity, are recommended in major guidelines as a first-step intervention in the treatment of hypertensive patients.² However, lifestyle and behavioral interventions aimed at reducing calorie intake through low-calorie dieting is challenging as it is dependent on individual motivation and adherence to a strict, continuous protocol. Further, CER strategies have limited effectiveness because complex and persistent hormonal, metabolic, and neurochemical adaptations defend against weight loss and promote weight regain.^3-4 IER has drawn attention in the popular media as an alternative to CER due to its feasibility and even potential for higher rates of compliance.⁵

This study adds to the literature as it is the first randomized controlled trial (to the knowledge of the authors at the time of publication) to explore 2 forms of energy restriction – CER and IER – and their impact on weight loss, BP, body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels in overweight and obese patients with high blood pressure. Results from this study showed that IER is as effective as, but not superior to, CER (in terms of the outcomes measures assessed). Specifically, findings highlighted that the 5:2 diet is an effective strategy and noninferior to that of daily calorie restriction for BP and weight control. In addition, both weight loss and BP reduction were greater in a subgroup of obese compared with overweight participants, which indicates that obese populations may benefit more from energy restriction. As the authors highlight, this study both aligns with and expands on current related literature.

This study has both strengths and limitations, especially with regard to the design and data analysis strategy. A key strength is the randomized controlled trial design which enables increased internal validity and decreases several sources of bias, including selection bias and confounding. In addition, it was also designed as a pragmatic trial, with the protocol reflecting efforts to replicate the real-world environment by not supplying meal replacements or food. Notably, only 9 patients could not comply with the protocol, indicating that acceptability of the diet protocol was high. However, as this was only a 6-month long study, further studies are needed to determine whether a 5:2 diet is sustainable (and effective) in the long-term compared with CER, which the authors highlight. The study was also adequately powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in weight loss and SBP, and appropriate analyses were performed on both the basis of completers and on an intention-to-treat principle. However, further studies are needed that are adequately powered to also detect clinically meaningful differences in the other measures, ie, body composition, HbA_1c, and blood lipid levels. Importantly, generalizability of findings from this study is limited as the study population comprises only Chinese adults, predominately middle-aged, overweight, and had mildly to moderately elevated SBP and DBP, and excluded diabetic patients. Thus, findings are not necessarily applicable to individuals with highly elevated blood pressure or poorly controlled diabetes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Results of this study demonstrated that IER is an effective alternative diet strategy for weight loss and blood pressure control in overweight and obese patients with hypertension and is comparable to CER. This is relevant for clinical practice as IER may be easier to maintain in this population compared to continuous weight-loss diets. Importantly, both types of calorie restriction require clinical oversight as medication changes and periodic monitoring of hypotensive and hypoglycemic episodes are needed. Clinicians should consider what is feasible and sustainable for their patients when recommending intermittent energy restriction.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI.

Design. Multicenter randomized control trial blinded to outcome, conducted in 41 sites in France.

Setting and participants. A total of 1163 patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease, who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions. Randomization was stratified according to the trial site and timing of the procedure (immediate or staged).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Main results. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.78-2.23; P = .31). The rate of death (1.5% vs 1.7%), nonfatal MI (3.1% vs 1.7%), and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization (3.1% vs 1.7%) were also similar between FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the culprit vessel, an FFR-guided strategy for complete revascularization was not superior to angiography-guided strategy for reducing death, MI, or urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI compared to culprit-only strategy including the most recent COMPLETE trial which showed reduction in death and MI.^2-6 However, the previous studies have variable design in evaluating the nonculprit vessel, some utilized FFR guidance, while others used angiography guidance. Whether FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit vessel can improve outcome in patients presenting STEMI remains unknown.

In the FLOWER-MI study, Puymirat et al investigated the use of FFR compared to angiography-guided nonculprit vessel PCI. A total of 1163 patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit vessel, were randomized to either FFR guidance or angiography guidance among 41 centers in France. The authors found that after 1 year, there was no difference in composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in the FFR-guided group compared to angiography-guided group (5.5% vs 4.2%, HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.678-2.23; P = .31). There was also no difference in individual components of primary outcomes or secondary outcomes such as rate of stent thrombosis, any revascularization, or hospitalization.

There are a few interesting points to consider in this study. Ever since the Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) trial reported the lower incidence of major adverse events in routine FFR measurement during PCI compared to angiography-guided PCI, physiological assessment has become the gold standard for treatment of stable ischemic heart disease.⁷ However, the results of the current FLOWER-MI trial were not consistent with the FAME trial and there are few possible reasons to consider.

First, the use of FFR in the setting of STEMI is less validated compared to stable ischemic heart disease.⁸ Microvascular dysfunction during the acute phase can affect the FFR reading and the lesion severity can be underestimated.⁸ Second, the rate of composite endpoint was much lower in this study compared to FAME despite using the same composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. At 1 year, the incidence of primary outcome was 13.5% in the FFR-guided group compared to 18.6% in the angiography-guided group in the FAME study compared to 5.5% and 4.2% in the FLOWER-MI study, despite having a sicker population presenting with STEMI. This is likely due to improvement in the PCI techniques such as radial approach, imaging guidance, and advancement in medical therapy such as use of more potent antiplatelet therapy. With lower incidence of primary outcome, larger number of patients are needed to detect the difference in the composite outcome. Finally, the operators’ visual assessment may have been calibrated to the physiologic assessment as the operators are routinely using FFR assessment which may have diminished the benefit of FFR guidance seen in the early FAME study.

Another interesting finding from this study was that although the study protocol encouraged the operators to perform the nonculprit PCI in the same setting, only 4% had nonculprit PCI in the same setting and 96% of the patients underwent a staged PCI. The advantage of performing the nonculprit PCI on the same setting is to have 1 fewer procedure for the patient. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this approach includes prolongation of the index procedure, theoretically higher risk of complication during the acute phase and vasospasm leading to overestimation of the lesion severity. A recent analysis from the COMPLETE study did not show any difference when comparing staged PCI during the index hospitalization vs after discharge.⁹ The optimal timing of the staged PCI needs to be investigated in future studies.

A limitation of this study is the lower than expected incidence of clinical events decreasing the statistical power of the study. However, there was no signal that FFR-guided PCI is better compared to the angiography-guided group. In fact, the curve started to diverge at 6 months favoring the angiography-guided group. In addition, there was no core-lab analysis for completeness of revascularization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI for undergoing nonculprit vessel PCI, both FFR-guided or angiography-guided strategies can be considered.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI.

Design. Multicenter randomized control trial blinded to outcome, conducted in 41 sites in France.

Setting and participants. A total of 1163 patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease, who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions. Randomization was stratified according to the trial site and timing of the procedure (immediate or staged).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Main results. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.78-2.23; P = .31). The rate of death (1.5% vs 1.7%), nonfatal MI (3.1% vs 1.7%), and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization (3.1% vs 1.7%) were also similar between FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the culprit vessel, an FFR-guided strategy for complete revascularization was not superior to angiography-guided strategy for reducing death, MI, or urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI compared to culprit-only strategy including the most recent COMPLETE trial which showed reduction in death and MI.^2-6 However, the previous studies have variable design in evaluating the nonculprit vessel, some utilized FFR guidance, while others used angiography guidance. Whether FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit vessel can improve outcome in patients presenting STEMI remains unknown.

In the FLOWER-MI study, Puymirat et al investigated the use of FFR compared to angiography-guided nonculprit vessel PCI. A total of 1163 patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit vessel, were randomized to either FFR guidance or angiography guidance among 41 centers in France. The authors found that after 1 year, there was no difference in composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in the FFR-guided group compared to angiography-guided group (5.5% vs 4.2%, HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.678-2.23; P = .31). There was also no difference in individual components of primary outcomes or secondary outcomes such as rate of stent thrombosis, any revascularization, or hospitalization.

There are a few interesting points to consider in this study. Ever since the Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) trial reported the lower incidence of major adverse events in routine FFR measurement during PCI compared to angiography-guided PCI, physiological assessment has become the gold standard for treatment of stable ischemic heart disease.⁷ However, the results of the current FLOWER-MI trial were not consistent with the FAME trial and there are few possible reasons to consider.

First, the use of FFR in the setting of STEMI is less validated compared to stable ischemic heart disease.⁸ Microvascular dysfunction during the acute phase can affect the FFR reading and the lesion severity can be underestimated.⁸ Second, the rate of composite endpoint was much lower in this study compared to FAME despite using the same composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. At 1 year, the incidence of primary outcome was 13.5% in the FFR-guided group compared to 18.6% in the angiography-guided group in the FAME study compared to 5.5% and 4.2% in the FLOWER-MI study, despite having a sicker population presenting with STEMI. This is likely due to improvement in the PCI techniques such as radial approach, imaging guidance, and advancement in medical therapy such as use of more potent antiplatelet therapy. With lower incidence of primary outcome, larger number of patients are needed to detect the difference in the composite outcome. Finally, the operators’ visual assessment may have been calibrated to the physiologic assessment as the operators are routinely using FFR assessment which may have diminished the benefit of FFR guidance seen in the early FAME study.

Another interesting finding from this study was that although the study protocol encouraged the operators to perform the nonculprit PCI in the same setting, only 4% had nonculprit PCI in the same setting and 96% of the patients underwent a staged PCI. The advantage of performing the nonculprit PCI on the same setting is to have 1 fewer procedure for the patient. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this approach includes prolongation of the index procedure, theoretically higher risk of complication during the acute phase and vasospasm leading to overestimation of the lesion severity. A recent analysis from the COMPLETE study did not show any difference when comparing staged PCI during the index hospitalization vs after discharge.⁹ The optimal timing of the staged PCI needs to be investigated in future studies.

A limitation of this study is the lower than expected incidence of clinical events decreasing the statistical power of the study. However, there was no signal that FFR-guided PCI is better compared to the angiography-guided group. In fact, the curve started to diverge at 6 months favoring the angiography-guided group. In addition, there was no core-lab analysis for completeness of revascularization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI for undergoing nonculprit vessel PCI, both FFR-guided or angiography-guided strategies can be considered.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI.

Design. Multicenter randomized control trial blinded to outcome, conducted in 41 sites in France.

Setting and participants. A total of 1163 patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease, who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions. Randomization was stratified according to the trial site and timing of the procedure (immediate or staged).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Main results. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.78-2.23; P = .31). The rate of death (1.5% vs 1.7%), nonfatal MI (3.1% vs 1.7%), and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization (3.1% vs 1.7%) were also similar between FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the culprit vessel, an FFR-guided strategy for complete revascularization was not superior to angiography-guided strategy for reducing death, MI, or urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI compared to culprit-only strategy including the most recent COMPLETE trial which showed reduction in death and MI.^2-6 However, the previous studies have variable design in evaluating the nonculprit vessel, some utilized FFR guidance, while others used angiography guidance. Whether FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit vessel can improve outcome in patients presenting STEMI remains unknown.

In the FLOWER-MI study, Puymirat et al investigated the use of FFR compared to angiography-guided nonculprit vessel PCI. A total of 1163 patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit vessel, were randomized to either FFR guidance or angiography guidance among 41 centers in France. The authors found that after 1 year, there was no difference in composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in the FFR-guided group compared to angiography-guided group (5.5% vs 4.2%, HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.678-2.23; P = .31). There was also no difference in individual components of primary outcomes or secondary outcomes such as rate of stent thrombosis, any revascularization, or hospitalization.

There are a few interesting points to consider in this study. Ever since the Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) trial reported the lower incidence of major adverse events in routine FFR measurement during PCI compared to angiography-guided PCI, physiological assessment has become the gold standard for treatment of stable ischemic heart disease.⁷ However, the results of the current FLOWER-MI trial were not consistent with the FAME trial and there are few possible reasons to consider.

First, the use of FFR in the setting of STEMI is less validated compared to stable ischemic heart disease.⁸ Microvascular dysfunction during the acute phase can affect the FFR reading and the lesion severity can be underestimated.⁸ Second, the rate of composite endpoint was much lower in this study compared to FAME despite using the same composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. At 1 year, the incidence of primary outcome was 13.5% in the FFR-guided group compared to 18.6% in the angiography-guided group in the FAME study compared to 5.5% and 4.2% in the FLOWER-MI study, despite having a sicker population presenting with STEMI. This is likely due to improvement in the PCI techniques such as radial approach, imaging guidance, and advancement in medical therapy such as use of more potent antiplatelet therapy. With lower incidence of primary outcome, larger number of patients are needed to detect the difference in the composite outcome. Finally, the operators’ visual assessment may have been calibrated to the physiologic assessment as the operators are routinely using FFR assessment which may have diminished the benefit of FFR guidance seen in the early FAME study.

Another interesting finding from this study was that although the study protocol encouraged the operators to perform the nonculprit PCI in the same setting, only 4% had nonculprit PCI in the same setting and 96% of the patients underwent a staged PCI. The advantage of performing the nonculprit PCI on the same setting is to have 1 fewer procedure for the patient. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this approach includes prolongation of the index procedure, theoretically higher risk of complication during the acute phase and vasospasm leading to overestimation of the lesion severity. A recent analysis from the COMPLETE study did not show any difference when comparing staged PCI during the index hospitalization vs after discharge.⁹ The optimal timing of the staged PCI needs to be investigated in future studies.

A limitation of this study is the lower than expected incidence of clinical events decreasing the statistical power of the study. However, there was no signal that FFR-guided PCI is better compared to the angiography-guided group. In fact, the curve started to diverge at 6 months favoring the angiography-guided group. In addition, there was no core-lab analysis for completeness of revascularization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI for undergoing nonculprit vessel PCI, both FFR-guided or angiography-guided strategies can be considered.

Financial disclosures: None.

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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