Cardiology

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 64-year-old overweight White man with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and HF with an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% presents for primary care follow-up after a recent inpatient admission for worsened HF symptoms. At baseline, he is comfortable at rest but becomes dyspneic upon walking to another room within his home. He is already taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, a high-intensity statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. What other medication should be considered to minimize his cardiovascular (CV)risk?

An estimated 1% to 2% of the world’s adult population has HF.² Although the exact prevalence is difficult to quantify due to variations in definitions and diagnostic methods, the American Heart Association (AHA) estimated that 6.2 million Americans had HF between 2013 and 2016.³ Prevalence increases with age, with an annual incidence of approximately 35 per 1000 by age 85.⁴ Due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HF, advancements in treatment are needed.

SGLT2 inhibitors work within the proximal tubule of the kidneys, resulting in increased glucose and sodium excretion with secondary osmotic diuresis and therefore a modest reduction in serum glucose.^1,2,5,6 SGLT2 inhibitors are classically prescribed for hyperglycemia treatment in type 2 diabetes. However, preliminary data suggest that this class of medication also positively impacts cardiac function. The diuresis and natriuresis effects of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to optimize cardiac output and subsequent oxygen consumption through a reduction of afterload and preload.^1,2,5,6 Further, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease inflammatory pathways and lead to a secondary reduction of cardiac remodeling via a reduction and modulation of inflammatory pathways. This reduction and modulation may also be associated with a reduction in development, and possibly a reversal, of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac fibrosis, and atherosclerosis.^5,6 Some of the previously reported adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors include urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury, lower extremity amputation, bone fracture, and diabetic ketoacidosis.²

In several studies of patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit in reducing CV disease–related death and hospitalization for HF.^1,2,5,6 A recent expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) states that SGLT2 therapy should be considered for any patient with type 2 diabetes who also has established atherosclerotic CV disease, HF (a clinical syndrome as defined in ACC/AHA guidelines), or diabetic kidney disease, or who is at a high risk for atherosclerotic CV disease (ie, has signs of end-organ damage, such as left ventricular hypertrophy or retinopathy, or multiple risk factors such as advanced age, smoking, hypertension, and family history).^7,8

Dapagliflozin demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower allcause mortality in patients both with and without diabetes.

Additionally, a 2019 randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Nassif et al showed that, compared to placebo, dapagliflozin significantly improved both patient-reported HF symptoms and cardiac natriuretic peptide levels over 12 weeks in patients with and without diabetes.⁹ In September 2020, ­UpToDate added SGLT2 inhibitors as an option for patients with continued symptoms of HF despite use of appropriate primary agents and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, whether or not they have type 2 diabetes; this update was based on 2 studies, 1 of which is reviewed here.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Dapagliflozin demonstrated better CV outcomes than placebo

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) study is an RCT that compared dapagliflozin to placebo among 4744 patients ages 18 years and older who had HF with an EF ≤ 40% and NYHA class II, III, or IV symptoms. The study included patients with (41.8%) and without diabetes. Most patients were male (76.2%-77%), White (70%), and European (44.7%-46.1%).

Patients were randomized to receive either dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or a matching placebo in addition to standard HF therapy (including an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan plus a beta-blocker unless contraindicated; mineralocorticoid antagonist use was encouraged). Follow-up occurred at 14 days, 60 days, 4 months, and then every 4 months, for an average of about 18 months. Patients with diabetes continued to use their glucose-lowering therapies, with dose adjustments, as needed.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous HF therapy) or death from a CV cause. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization for HF or CV death; total number of hospitalizations for HF (including repeat admissions) and CV death; a change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score; a composite of worsening renal function including a sustained (≥ 28 d) decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 50%, end-stage renal disease (defined as sustained eGFR of < 15 mL/min/1.73 m², sustained dialysis, or renal transplantation), or renal death; and death from any cause.

The primary outcome of worsening HF or death from CV causes occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001). The composite score of hospitalizations for HF plus death from a CV cause was lower in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001).

Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications.

A total of 276 patients (11.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and 329 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group died from any cause (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97). More patients in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group had an improvement in symptom score (58.3% vs 50.9%; odds ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). Renal composite outcome did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Potential adverse effects included volume depletion, renal adverse event, and major hypoglycemia, which occurred at the same rate in the treatment and placebo groups. There was no difference in outcomes or adverse effects between patients with and without diabetes.¹

WHAT'S NEW

Evidence supports dapagliflozin use in a new patient population

The DAPA-HF study compared dapagliflozin to placebo in HF patients both with and without diabetes and demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved ­patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower all-cause mortality in the treatment group. This study supports use of dapagliflozin in a new patient population—those with HF—rather than solely in patients with diabetes, as the drug was originally marketed.

CAVEATS

Specific study population may limit generalizability

The DAPA-HF study included mostly male, White, European patients followed for an average of 18.2 months as part of initial Phase III studies funded by AstraZeneca (the pharmaceutical company that developed dapagliflozin). Given the potential conflict due to funding, all statistical results were verified by an independent academic group, and analyses were completed with an intention-to-treat model. The outlined benefits described here were only studied in a population of patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%), so the impact remains unclear for patients with preserved EF. Safety and benefits beyond 24 months were not studied in this RCT; therefore long-term data are still unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adding an SGLT2 inhibitor may be cost prohibitive for some patients

An SGLT2 inhibitor costs, on average, $500 to $600 for a 30-day supply, which may be prohibitive for some patients.¹¹ Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications, particularly glucose-lowering therapies, and the optimal prioritization of medications is not yet known.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 64-year-old overweight White man with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and HF with an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% presents for primary care follow-up after a recent inpatient admission for worsened HF symptoms. At baseline, he is comfortable at rest but becomes dyspneic upon walking to another room within his home. He is already taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, a high-intensity statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. What other medication should be considered to minimize his cardiovascular (CV)risk?

An estimated 1% to 2% of the world’s adult population has HF.² Although the exact prevalence is difficult to quantify due to variations in definitions and diagnostic methods, the American Heart Association (AHA) estimated that 6.2 million Americans had HF between 2013 and 2016.³ Prevalence increases with age, with an annual incidence of approximately 35 per 1000 by age 85.⁴ Due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HF, advancements in treatment are needed.

SGLT2 inhibitors work within the proximal tubule of the kidneys, resulting in increased glucose and sodium excretion with secondary osmotic diuresis and therefore a modest reduction in serum glucose.^1,2,5,6 SGLT2 inhibitors are classically prescribed for hyperglycemia treatment in type 2 diabetes. However, preliminary data suggest that this class of medication also positively impacts cardiac function. The diuresis and natriuresis effects of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to optimize cardiac output and subsequent oxygen consumption through a reduction of afterload and preload.^1,2,5,6 Further, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease inflammatory pathways and lead to a secondary reduction of cardiac remodeling via a reduction and modulation of inflammatory pathways. This reduction and modulation may also be associated with a reduction in development, and possibly a reversal, of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac fibrosis, and atherosclerosis.^5,6 Some of the previously reported adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors include urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury, lower extremity amputation, bone fracture, and diabetic ketoacidosis.²

In several studies of patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit in reducing CV disease–related death and hospitalization for HF.^1,2,5,6 A recent expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) states that SGLT2 therapy should be considered for any patient with type 2 diabetes who also has established atherosclerotic CV disease, HF (a clinical syndrome as defined in ACC/AHA guidelines), or diabetic kidney disease, or who is at a high risk for atherosclerotic CV disease (ie, has signs of end-organ damage, such as left ventricular hypertrophy or retinopathy, or multiple risk factors such as advanced age, smoking, hypertension, and family history).^7,8

Dapagliflozin demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower allcause mortality in patients both with and without diabetes.

Additionally, a 2019 randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Nassif et al showed that, compared to placebo, dapagliflozin significantly improved both patient-reported HF symptoms and cardiac natriuretic peptide levels over 12 weeks in patients with and without diabetes.⁹ In September 2020, ­UpToDate added SGLT2 inhibitors as an option for patients with continued symptoms of HF despite use of appropriate primary agents and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, whether or not they have type 2 diabetes; this update was based on 2 studies, 1 of which is reviewed here.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Dapagliflozin demonstrated better CV outcomes than placebo

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) study is an RCT that compared dapagliflozin to placebo among 4744 patients ages 18 years and older who had HF with an EF ≤ 40% and NYHA class II, III, or IV symptoms. The study included patients with (41.8%) and without diabetes. Most patients were male (76.2%-77%), White (70%), and European (44.7%-46.1%).

Patients were randomized to receive either dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or a matching placebo in addition to standard HF therapy (including an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan plus a beta-blocker unless contraindicated; mineralocorticoid antagonist use was encouraged). Follow-up occurred at 14 days, 60 days, 4 months, and then every 4 months, for an average of about 18 months. Patients with diabetes continued to use their glucose-lowering therapies, with dose adjustments, as needed.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous HF therapy) or death from a CV cause. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization for HF or CV death; total number of hospitalizations for HF (including repeat admissions) and CV death; a change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score; a composite of worsening renal function including a sustained (≥ 28 d) decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 50%, end-stage renal disease (defined as sustained eGFR of < 15 mL/min/1.73 m², sustained dialysis, or renal transplantation), or renal death; and death from any cause.

The primary outcome of worsening HF or death from CV causes occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001). The composite score of hospitalizations for HF plus death from a CV cause was lower in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001).

Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications.

A total of 276 patients (11.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and 329 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group died from any cause (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97). More patients in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group had an improvement in symptom score (58.3% vs 50.9%; odds ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). Renal composite outcome did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Potential adverse effects included volume depletion, renal adverse event, and major hypoglycemia, which occurred at the same rate in the treatment and placebo groups. There was no difference in outcomes or adverse effects between patients with and without diabetes.¹

WHAT'S NEW

Evidence supports dapagliflozin use in a new patient population

The DAPA-HF study compared dapagliflozin to placebo in HF patients both with and without diabetes and demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved ­patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower all-cause mortality in the treatment group. This study supports use of dapagliflozin in a new patient population—those with HF—rather than solely in patients with diabetes, as the drug was originally marketed.

CAVEATS

Specific study population may limit generalizability

The DAPA-HF study included mostly male, White, European patients followed for an average of 18.2 months as part of initial Phase III studies funded by AstraZeneca (the pharmaceutical company that developed dapagliflozin). Given the potential conflict due to funding, all statistical results were verified by an independent academic group, and analyses were completed with an intention-to-treat model. The outlined benefits described here were only studied in a population of patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%), so the impact remains unclear for patients with preserved EF. Safety and benefits beyond 24 months were not studied in this RCT; therefore long-term data are still unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adding an SGLT2 inhibitor may be cost prohibitive for some patients

An SGLT2 inhibitor costs, on average, $500 to $600 for a 30-day supply, which may be prohibitive for some patients.¹¹ Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications, particularly glucose-lowering therapies, and the optimal prioritization of medications is not yet known.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 64-year-old overweight White man with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and HF with an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% presents for primary care follow-up after a recent inpatient admission for worsened HF symptoms. At baseline, he is comfortable at rest but becomes dyspneic upon walking to another room within his home. He is already taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, a high-intensity statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. What other medication should be considered to minimize his cardiovascular (CV)risk?

An estimated 1% to 2% of the world’s adult population has HF.² Although the exact prevalence is difficult to quantify due to variations in definitions and diagnostic methods, the American Heart Association (AHA) estimated that 6.2 million Americans had HF between 2013 and 2016.³ Prevalence increases with age, with an annual incidence of approximately 35 per 1000 by age 85.⁴ Due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HF, advancements in treatment are needed.

SGLT2 inhibitors work within the proximal tubule of the kidneys, resulting in increased glucose and sodium excretion with secondary osmotic diuresis and therefore a modest reduction in serum glucose.^1,2,5,6 SGLT2 inhibitors are classically prescribed for hyperglycemia treatment in type 2 diabetes. However, preliminary data suggest that this class of medication also positively impacts cardiac function. The diuresis and natriuresis effects of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to optimize cardiac output and subsequent oxygen consumption through a reduction of afterload and preload.^1,2,5,6 Further, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease inflammatory pathways and lead to a secondary reduction of cardiac remodeling via a reduction and modulation of inflammatory pathways. This reduction and modulation may also be associated with a reduction in development, and possibly a reversal, of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac fibrosis, and atherosclerosis.^5,6 Some of the previously reported adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors include urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury, lower extremity amputation, bone fracture, and diabetic ketoacidosis.²

In several studies of patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit in reducing CV disease–related death and hospitalization for HF.^1,2,5,6 A recent expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) states that SGLT2 therapy should be considered for any patient with type 2 diabetes who also has established atherosclerotic CV disease, HF (a clinical syndrome as defined in ACC/AHA guidelines), or diabetic kidney disease, or who is at a high risk for atherosclerotic CV disease (ie, has signs of end-organ damage, such as left ventricular hypertrophy or retinopathy, or multiple risk factors such as advanced age, smoking, hypertension, and family history).^7,8

Dapagliflozin demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower allcause mortality in patients both with and without diabetes.

Additionally, a 2019 randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Nassif et al showed that, compared to placebo, dapagliflozin significantly improved both patient-reported HF symptoms and cardiac natriuretic peptide levels over 12 weeks in patients with and without diabetes.⁹ In September 2020, ­UpToDate added SGLT2 inhibitors as an option for patients with continued symptoms of HF despite use of appropriate primary agents and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, whether or not they have type 2 diabetes; this update was based on 2 studies, 1 of which is reviewed here.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Dapagliflozin demonstrated better CV outcomes than placebo

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) study is an RCT that compared dapagliflozin to placebo among 4744 patients ages 18 years and older who had HF with an EF ≤ 40% and NYHA class II, III, or IV symptoms. The study included patients with (41.8%) and without diabetes. Most patients were male (76.2%-77%), White (70%), and European (44.7%-46.1%).

Patients were randomized to receive either dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or a matching placebo in addition to standard HF therapy (including an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan plus a beta-blocker unless contraindicated; mineralocorticoid antagonist use was encouraged). Follow-up occurred at 14 days, 60 days, 4 months, and then every 4 months, for an average of about 18 months. Patients with diabetes continued to use their glucose-lowering therapies, with dose adjustments, as needed.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous HF therapy) or death from a CV cause. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization for HF or CV death; total number of hospitalizations for HF (including repeat admissions) and CV death; a change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score; a composite of worsening renal function including a sustained (≥ 28 d) decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 50%, end-stage renal disease (defined as sustained eGFR of < 15 mL/min/1.73 m², sustained dialysis, or renal transplantation), or renal death; and death from any cause.

The primary outcome of worsening HF or death from CV causes occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001). The composite score of hospitalizations for HF plus death from a CV cause was lower in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < .001).

Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications.

A total of 276 patients (11.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and 329 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group died from any cause (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97). More patients in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group had an improvement in symptom score (58.3% vs 50.9%; odds ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). Renal composite outcome did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Potential adverse effects included volume depletion, renal adverse event, and major hypoglycemia, which occurred at the same rate in the treatment and placebo groups. There was no difference in outcomes or adverse effects between patients with and without diabetes.¹

WHAT'S NEW

Evidence supports dapagliflozin use in a new patient population

The DAPA-HF study compared dapagliflozin to placebo in HF patients both with and without diabetes and demonstrated decreased HF exacerbations and CV deaths, improved ­patient-reported HF symptoms, and lower all-cause mortality in the treatment group. This study supports use of dapagliflozin in a new patient population—those with HF—rather than solely in patients with diabetes, as the drug was originally marketed.

CAVEATS

Specific study population may limit generalizability

The DAPA-HF study included mostly male, White, European patients followed for an average of 18.2 months as part of initial Phase III studies funded by AstraZeneca (the pharmaceutical company that developed dapagliflozin). Given the potential conflict due to funding, all statistical results were verified by an independent academic group, and analyses were completed with an intention-to-treat model. The outlined benefits described here were only studied in a population of patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%), so the impact remains unclear for patients with preserved EF. Safety and benefits beyond 24 months were not studied in this RCT; therefore long-term data are still unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adding an SGLT2 inhibitor may be cost prohibitive for some patients

An SGLT2 inhibitor costs, on average, $500 to $600 for a 30-day supply, which may be prohibitive for some patients.¹¹ Integration of SGLT2 inhibitors into a patient’s medication regimen may require dose adjustments of other medications, particularly glucose-lowering therapies, and the optimal prioritization of medications is not yet known.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (Afib) is the most common arrhythmia requiring treatment in the ED. There is a paucity of literature regarding the management of acute (onset < 48 h) atrial fibrillation in this setting and no conclusive evidence exists regarding the superiority of pharmacologic vs. electrical cardioversion.

The “drug-shock” group achieved and maintained sinus rhythm in 96% of cases, compared to 92% in the “placebo-shock” group (statistically insignificant difference). The procainamide infusion alone achieved and maintained sinus rhythm in 52% of recipients, who thereby avoided the need for procedural sedation and monitoring. Notably, only 2% of patients in the study required admission to the hospital. Pad placement was equally efficacious in the AL or AP positions. The most common adverse event observed was transient hypotension during infusion of procainamide. No strokes were observed in either arm. Follow-up ECGs obtained 14 days later showed that 95% of patients remained in sinus rhythm.

Bottom line: Pharmacologic cardioversion with procainamide infusion and/or electrical cardioversion is a safe and efficacious initial management strategy for acute atrial fibrillation, and all but eliminates the need for hospital admission.

Citation: Stiell IG et al. Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomized trial. Lancet. 2020 Feb 1;395(10221):339-49.

Dr. Lawson is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (Afib) is the most common arrhythmia requiring treatment in the ED. There is a paucity of literature regarding the management of acute (onset < 48 h) atrial fibrillation in this setting and no conclusive evidence exists regarding the superiority of pharmacologic vs. electrical cardioversion.

The “drug-shock” group achieved and maintained sinus rhythm in 96% of cases, compared to 92% in the “placebo-shock” group (statistically insignificant difference). The procainamide infusion alone achieved and maintained sinus rhythm in 52% of recipients, who thereby avoided the need for procedural sedation and monitoring. Notably, only 2% of patients in the study required admission to the hospital. Pad placement was equally efficacious in the AL or AP positions. The most common adverse event observed was transient hypotension during infusion of procainamide. No strokes were observed in either arm. Follow-up ECGs obtained 14 days later showed that 95% of patients remained in sinus rhythm.

Bottom line: Pharmacologic cardioversion with procainamide infusion and/or electrical cardioversion is a safe and efficacious initial management strategy for acute atrial fibrillation, and all but eliminates the need for hospital admission.

Citation: Stiell IG et al. Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomized trial. Lancet. 2020 Feb 1;395(10221):339-49.

Dr. Lawson is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (Afib) is the most common arrhythmia requiring treatment in the ED. There is a paucity of literature regarding the management of acute (onset < 48 h) atrial fibrillation in this setting and no conclusive evidence exists regarding the superiority of pharmacologic vs. electrical cardioversion.

The “drug-shock” group achieved and maintained sinus rhythm in 96% of cases, compared to 92% in the “placebo-shock” group (statistically insignificant difference). The procainamide infusion alone achieved and maintained sinus rhythm in 52% of recipients, who thereby avoided the need for procedural sedation and monitoring. Notably, only 2% of patients in the study required admission to the hospital. Pad placement was equally efficacious in the AL or AP positions. The most common adverse event observed was transient hypotension during infusion of procainamide. No strokes were observed in either arm. Follow-up ECGs obtained 14 days later showed that 95% of patients remained in sinus rhythm.

Bottom line: Pharmacologic cardioversion with procainamide infusion and/or electrical cardioversion is a safe and efficacious initial management strategy for acute atrial fibrillation, and all but eliminates the need for hospital admission.

Citation: Stiell IG et al. Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomized trial. Lancet. 2020 Feb 1;395(10221):339-49.

Dr. Lawson is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Habitual coffee drinking was not associated with a heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias in a study of more than 300,000 people.

In fact, an adjusted analysis found that “each additional cup of coffee intake was associated with a 3% lower risk of incident arrhythmia,” Eun-jeong Kim, MD, of the division of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In addition, genetic differences that affect caffeine metabolism did not significantly influence the odds of arrhythmias, the researchers found.

Still, these findings should not necessarily encourage people to start drinking coffee if they don’t already, or to guzzle additional cups with abandon, they said.

American Heart Association

“We certainly don’t want to say drink coffee and it will reduce your risk of arrhythmias,” study author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, associate chief of cardiology for research at UCSF Health, said in an interview. “But rather, we think the main point is that a blanket prohibition against coffee or caffeine to reduce the risk of arrhythmias among patients who have a diagnosis of arrhythmias is likely unwarranted. And given some evidence that coffee consumption may actually have other benefits regarding diabetes, mood, and perhaps overall mortality, it may be problematic to admonish patients to avoid coffee or caffeine when it is not really warranted.”
 

Methods and results

The conventional wisdom that caffeine increases arrhythmic risk has not been well substantiated. To further examine whether moderate, habitual coffee drinking relates to arrhythmia risk, and whether certain genetic variants influence the association, Dr. Kim and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank. They focused on longitudinal data collected between 2006 and 2018 from 386,258 people who did not have a prior diagnosis of arrhythmia.

Participants had an average age of 56 years, and about 52% were female. They provided information about their coffee consumption, and the researchers grouped the participants into eight categories based on their daily coffee intake: 0, less than 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 or more cups per day.

Over an average follow-up of 4.5 years, 16,979 participants developed an incident arrhythmia. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and lifestyle habits, the decreased risk with each cup of coffee was similar for atrial fibrillation or flutter (hazard ratio, 0.97) and supraventricular tachycardia (HR, 0.96).

Taking into account genetic variations that relate to caffeine metabolism did not modify the findings. Mendelian randomization analyses that used a polygenic score of inherited caffeine metabolism patterns “failed to provide evidence that caffeine consumption leads to a greater risk of arrhythmias,” the researchers said.

Professional society guidelines have suggested staying away from caffeinated products to reduce the risk of arrhythmia, but this guidance has “relied on assumed mechanisms and a small observational study from 1980,” the authors wrote. Subsequent research has indicated that coffee’s reputation of increasing the risk of arrhythmia may be undeserved.

“The investigators should be commended on performing a high-quality observational study to try to further understand the association between coffee consumption and arrhythmias, or the lack of one,” commented Zachary D. Goldberger, MD, MS, with the division of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study. “This is not a randomized, controlled trial, and coffee consumption was self-reported, but the methods employed are rigorous, despite these and other important limitations. However, we need to be extremely cautious in how we interpret these findings, and not use these data as a prescription for more coffee. It’s important to recognize that this study is not telling us to drink more coffee, or start drinking coffee, to protect against developing arrhythmias. However, it should offer more reassurance that moderate coffee consumption is not necessarily harmful, and will not always lead to arrhythmias. This is important, given the widespread notion that coffee is universally proarrhythmic.”
 

A call for personalized guidance

“As the investigators note, there are definitely biologically plausible reasons how coffee and caffeine may not cause arrhythmias, and may be possibly protective in some, despite being a stimulant,” Dr. Goldberger said. “However, if your patient is reporting palpitations or symptoms of an arrhythmia, and feels they be related to coffee or caffeine, we should not use this study to tell them that coffee may not be the culprit. We need to listen to our patients, and the decision to reduce coffee consumption to reduce these symptoms needs to be personalized.”

The effect size was small, and only about 4% of the participants developed an arrhythmia, Dr. Goldberger and Rodney A. Hayward, MD, wrote in an invited commentary on the study in JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Hayward is a professor of public health and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a senior investigator at the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research.

“Unfortunately, coffee consumption was self-reported at a single time point. Not only can this lead to recall bias, but subsequent and substantial changes in coffee consumption are also possible, including reductions due to new signs or symptoms,” they said.
 

No evidence that coffee ups risk for developing arrhythmias

Another recent study suggests that people may alter their coffee consumption depending on their baseline cardiovascular health, according to the commentary.

Overall, the results “strengthen the evidence that caffeine is not proarrhythmic, but they should not be taken as proving that coffee is an antiarrhythmic—this distinction is of paramount importance,” Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Hayward wrote. “Health care professionals can reassure patients that there is no evidence that drinking coffee increases the risk for developing arrhythmias. This is particularly important for the many patients with benign palpitations who are devastated when they think, or are told, that they have to stop drinking coffee. Given current evidence, this is entirely a patient-preference decision, not a medical one.”

Dr. Marcus, a cardiac electrophysiologist, sees patients with arrhythmias all the time. They tend to “come in fairly convinced that caffeine is to be avoided when they have arrhythmias,” he said. “Often, they been told by their primary care physician or their general cardiologist to avoid caffeine because they have an arrhythmia.

“What I suggest to my patients is that they feel free to go ahead and experiment and try coffee,” Dr. Marcus said.

Still, Dr. Marcus suspects that there are some individuals in whom caffeine is a trigger for the arrhythmia. But evidence indicates these cases likely are rare, and avoiding caffeine need not apply to the general population, particularly “given the potential health benefits of benefits of coffee and also, frankly, just the enhanced quality of life that people can enjoy drinking a good cup of coffee.”

The research was conducted using the UK Biobank resource, which was established by the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, the U.K. Department of Health, and the Scottish government. The UK Biobank has received funding from other agencies and foundations as well. Dr. Marcus disclosed grants from Baylis, Medtronic, and Eight Sleep outside the submitted work. In addition, he reported consulting for Johnson & Johnson and InCarda, and holding equity in InCarda. A coauthor received salary support from the National Institutes of Health during the study. Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Hayward disclosed no conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Habitual coffee drinking was not associated with a heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias in a study of more than 300,000 people.

In fact, an adjusted analysis found that “each additional cup of coffee intake was associated with a 3% lower risk of incident arrhythmia,” Eun-jeong Kim, MD, of the division of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In addition, genetic differences that affect caffeine metabolism did not significantly influence the odds of arrhythmias, the researchers found.

Still, these findings should not necessarily encourage people to start drinking coffee if they don’t already, or to guzzle additional cups with abandon, they said.

American Heart Association

“We certainly don’t want to say drink coffee and it will reduce your risk of arrhythmias,” study author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, associate chief of cardiology for research at UCSF Health, said in an interview. “But rather, we think the main point is that a blanket prohibition against coffee or caffeine to reduce the risk of arrhythmias among patients who have a diagnosis of arrhythmias is likely unwarranted. And given some evidence that coffee consumption may actually have other benefits regarding diabetes, mood, and perhaps overall mortality, it may be problematic to admonish patients to avoid coffee or caffeine when it is not really warranted.”
 

Methods and results

The conventional wisdom that caffeine increases arrhythmic risk has not been well substantiated. To further examine whether moderate, habitual coffee drinking relates to arrhythmia risk, and whether certain genetic variants influence the association, Dr. Kim and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank. They focused on longitudinal data collected between 2006 and 2018 from 386,258 people who did not have a prior diagnosis of arrhythmia.

Participants had an average age of 56 years, and about 52% were female. They provided information about their coffee consumption, and the researchers grouped the participants into eight categories based on their daily coffee intake: 0, less than 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 or more cups per day.

Over an average follow-up of 4.5 years, 16,979 participants developed an incident arrhythmia. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and lifestyle habits, the decreased risk with each cup of coffee was similar for atrial fibrillation or flutter (hazard ratio, 0.97) and supraventricular tachycardia (HR, 0.96).

Taking into account genetic variations that relate to caffeine metabolism did not modify the findings. Mendelian randomization analyses that used a polygenic score of inherited caffeine metabolism patterns “failed to provide evidence that caffeine consumption leads to a greater risk of arrhythmias,” the researchers said.

Professional society guidelines have suggested staying away from caffeinated products to reduce the risk of arrhythmia, but this guidance has “relied on assumed mechanisms and a small observational study from 1980,” the authors wrote. Subsequent research has indicated that coffee’s reputation of increasing the risk of arrhythmia may be undeserved.

“The investigators should be commended on performing a high-quality observational study to try to further understand the association between coffee consumption and arrhythmias, or the lack of one,” commented Zachary D. Goldberger, MD, MS, with the division of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study. “This is not a randomized, controlled trial, and coffee consumption was self-reported, but the methods employed are rigorous, despite these and other important limitations. However, we need to be extremely cautious in how we interpret these findings, and not use these data as a prescription for more coffee. It’s important to recognize that this study is not telling us to drink more coffee, or start drinking coffee, to protect against developing arrhythmias. However, it should offer more reassurance that moderate coffee consumption is not necessarily harmful, and will not always lead to arrhythmias. This is important, given the widespread notion that coffee is universally proarrhythmic.”
 

A call for personalized guidance

“As the investigators note, there are definitely biologically plausible reasons how coffee and caffeine may not cause arrhythmias, and may be possibly protective in some, despite being a stimulant,” Dr. Goldberger said. “However, if your patient is reporting palpitations or symptoms of an arrhythmia, and feels they be related to coffee or caffeine, we should not use this study to tell them that coffee may not be the culprit. We need to listen to our patients, and the decision to reduce coffee consumption to reduce these symptoms needs to be personalized.”

The effect size was small, and only about 4% of the participants developed an arrhythmia, Dr. Goldberger and Rodney A. Hayward, MD, wrote in an invited commentary on the study in JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Hayward is a professor of public health and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a senior investigator at the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research.

“Unfortunately, coffee consumption was self-reported at a single time point. Not only can this lead to recall bias, but subsequent and substantial changes in coffee consumption are also possible, including reductions due to new signs or symptoms,” they said.
 

No evidence that coffee ups risk for developing arrhythmias

Another recent study suggests that people may alter their coffee consumption depending on their baseline cardiovascular health, according to the commentary.

Overall, the results “strengthen the evidence that caffeine is not proarrhythmic, but they should not be taken as proving that coffee is an antiarrhythmic—this distinction is of paramount importance,” Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Hayward wrote. “Health care professionals can reassure patients that there is no evidence that drinking coffee increases the risk for developing arrhythmias. This is particularly important for the many patients with benign palpitations who are devastated when they think, or are told, that they have to stop drinking coffee. Given current evidence, this is entirely a patient-preference decision, not a medical one.”

Dr. Marcus, a cardiac electrophysiologist, sees patients with arrhythmias all the time. They tend to “come in fairly convinced that caffeine is to be avoided when they have arrhythmias,” he said. “Often, they been told by their primary care physician or their general cardiologist to avoid caffeine because they have an arrhythmia.

“What I suggest to my patients is that they feel free to go ahead and experiment and try coffee,” Dr. Marcus said.

Still, Dr. Marcus suspects that there are some individuals in whom caffeine is a trigger for the arrhythmia. But evidence indicates these cases likely are rare, and avoiding caffeine need not apply to the general population, particularly “given the potential health benefits of benefits of coffee and also, frankly, just the enhanced quality of life that people can enjoy drinking a good cup of coffee.”

The research was conducted using the UK Biobank resource, which was established by the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, the U.K. Department of Health, and the Scottish government. The UK Biobank has received funding from other agencies and foundations as well. Dr. Marcus disclosed grants from Baylis, Medtronic, and Eight Sleep outside the submitted work. In addition, he reported consulting for Johnson & Johnson and InCarda, and holding equity in InCarda. A coauthor received salary support from the National Institutes of Health during the study. Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Hayward disclosed no conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Habitual coffee drinking was not associated with a heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias in a study of more than 300,000 people.

In fact, an adjusted analysis found that “each additional cup of coffee intake was associated with a 3% lower risk of incident arrhythmia,” Eun-jeong Kim, MD, of the division of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In addition, genetic differences that affect caffeine metabolism did not significantly influence the odds of arrhythmias, the researchers found.

Still, these findings should not necessarily encourage people to start drinking coffee if they don’t already, or to guzzle additional cups with abandon, they said.

American Heart Association

“We certainly don’t want to say drink coffee and it will reduce your risk of arrhythmias,” study author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, associate chief of cardiology for research at UCSF Health, said in an interview. “But rather, we think the main point is that a blanket prohibition against coffee or caffeine to reduce the risk of arrhythmias among patients who have a diagnosis of arrhythmias is likely unwarranted. And given some evidence that coffee consumption may actually have other benefits regarding diabetes, mood, and perhaps overall mortality, it may be problematic to admonish patients to avoid coffee or caffeine when it is not really warranted.”
 

Methods and results

The conventional wisdom that caffeine increases arrhythmic risk has not been well substantiated. To further examine whether moderate, habitual coffee drinking relates to arrhythmia risk, and whether certain genetic variants influence the association, Dr. Kim and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank. They focused on longitudinal data collected between 2006 and 2018 from 386,258 people who did not have a prior diagnosis of arrhythmia.

Participants had an average age of 56 years, and about 52% were female. They provided information about their coffee consumption, and the researchers grouped the participants into eight categories based on their daily coffee intake: 0, less than 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 or more cups per day.

Over an average follow-up of 4.5 years, 16,979 participants developed an incident arrhythmia. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and lifestyle habits, the decreased risk with each cup of coffee was similar for atrial fibrillation or flutter (hazard ratio, 0.97) and supraventricular tachycardia (HR, 0.96).

Taking into account genetic variations that relate to caffeine metabolism did not modify the findings. Mendelian randomization analyses that used a polygenic score of inherited caffeine metabolism patterns “failed to provide evidence that caffeine consumption leads to a greater risk of arrhythmias,” the researchers said.

Professional society guidelines have suggested staying away from caffeinated products to reduce the risk of arrhythmia, but this guidance has “relied on assumed mechanisms and a small observational study from 1980,” the authors wrote. Subsequent research has indicated that coffee’s reputation of increasing the risk of arrhythmia may be undeserved.

“The investigators should be commended on performing a high-quality observational study to try to further understand the association between coffee consumption and arrhythmias, or the lack of one,” commented Zachary D. Goldberger, MD, MS, with the division of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study. “This is not a randomized, controlled trial, and coffee consumption was self-reported, but the methods employed are rigorous, despite these and other important limitations. However, we need to be extremely cautious in how we interpret these findings, and not use these data as a prescription for more coffee. It’s important to recognize that this study is not telling us to drink more coffee, or start drinking coffee, to protect against developing arrhythmias. However, it should offer more reassurance that moderate coffee consumption is not necessarily harmful, and will not always lead to arrhythmias. This is important, given the widespread notion that coffee is universally proarrhythmic.”
 

A call for personalized guidance

“As the investigators note, there are definitely biologically plausible reasons how coffee and caffeine may not cause arrhythmias, and may be possibly protective in some, despite being a stimulant,” Dr. Goldberger said. “However, if your patient is reporting palpitations or symptoms of an arrhythmia, and feels they be related to coffee or caffeine, we should not use this study to tell them that coffee may not be the culprit. We need to listen to our patients, and the decision to reduce coffee consumption to reduce these symptoms needs to be personalized.”

The effect size was small, and only about 4% of the participants developed an arrhythmia, Dr. Goldberger and Rodney A. Hayward, MD, wrote in an invited commentary on the study in JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Hayward is a professor of public health and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a senior investigator at the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research.

“Unfortunately, coffee consumption was self-reported at a single time point. Not only can this lead to recall bias, but subsequent and substantial changes in coffee consumption are also possible, including reductions due to new signs or symptoms,” they said.
 

No evidence that coffee ups risk for developing arrhythmias

Another recent study suggests that people may alter their coffee consumption depending on their baseline cardiovascular health, according to the commentary.

Overall, the results “strengthen the evidence that caffeine is not proarrhythmic, but they should not be taken as proving that coffee is an antiarrhythmic—this distinction is of paramount importance,” Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Hayward wrote. “Health care professionals can reassure patients that there is no evidence that drinking coffee increases the risk for developing arrhythmias. This is particularly important for the many patients with benign palpitations who are devastated when they think, or are told, that they have to stop drinking coffee. Given current evidence, this is entirely a patient-preference decision, not a medical one.”

Dr. Marcus, a cardiac electrophysiologist, sees patients with arrhythmias all the time. They tend to “come in fairly convinced that caffeine is to be avoided when they have arrhythmias,” he said. “Often, they been told by their primary care physician or their general cardiologist to avoid caffeine because they have an arrhythmia.

“What I suggest to my patients is that they feel free to go ahead and experiment and try coffee,” Dr. Marcus said.

Still, Dr. Marcus suspects that there are some individuals in whom caffeine is a trigger for the arrhythmia. But evidence indicates these cases likely are rare, and avoiding caffeine need not apply to the general population, particularly “given the potential health benefits of benefits of coffee and also, frankly, just the enhanced quality of life that people can enjoy drinking a good cup of coffee.”

The research was conducted using the UK Biobank resource, which was established by the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, the U.K. Department of Health, and the Scottish government. The UK Biobank has received funding from other agencies and foundations as well. Dr. Marcus disclosed grants from Baylis, Medtronic, and Eight Sleep outside the submitted work. In addition, he reported consulting for Johnson & Johnson and InCarda, and holding equity in InCarda. A coauthor received salary support from the National Institutes of Health during the study. Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Hayward disclosed no conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients who are candidates for oral anticoagulants, according to data drawn from a large multicenter French TAVR registry.

When oral anticoagulation is appropriate following TAVR, such as in patients with atrial fibrillation, “DOACs are associated with improved survival and lower incidence of bleeding, compared to VKA,” reported a team of investigators led by Martine Gilard, MD, PhD, director of interventional cardiology, Brest (France) University Hospital Center.

The comparison, using propensity score matching, is not definitive, but it might be the best data currently available to support DOACs over VKA until a randomized trial is completed, according to Dr. Gilard, senior author of the newly published study.

Asked in an interview if DOACs should now be used preferentially after TAVR when patients are indicated for oral anticoagulation, Dr. Gilard replied, “My answer is yes.”

Of more than 24,000 TAVR patients in the French TAVI and FRANCE2 multicenter registries, which are linked to the French single-payer claims database (SNDS), 8,962 (36.4%) received an oral anticoagulant following their procedure. Of these, 2,180 (24.3%) received a DOAC and the remaining received VKA.

By linking data from the registries to the SNDS, outcomes were tracked. Propensity matching was employed to control for differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, functional class, diabetes, comorbidities, and past medical history.

On the primary endpoint of mortality at the end of 3 years, the rates were 35.6% and 31.2% for VKA and DOACs, respectively. This translated in a 37% greater hazard ratio for death among those treated with VKA (P < .005).

The rate of major bleeding, a secondary endpoint, was also higher (12.3% vs. 8.4%) and significantly different (HR, 1.65; P < .005) for VKA versus DOACs. The rates of ischemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and hemorrhagic stroke were all numerically higher in patients treated with VKA than DOACs, although none of these differences reached statistical significance.
 

Residual confounding cannot be discounted

“The large number of events allowed for taking into account a higher number of potential confounders with appropriate statistical power,” according to the authors. However, they acknowledged that residual confounding cannot be eliminated by propensity matching and conceded that prospective data are needed for a definitive comparison.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniele Giacoppo, MD, a cardiologist at Alto Vicentino Hospital, Santorso, Italy, enlarged on this point . In addition to the inherent limitations of retrospective data, he also noted that data from other studies addressing the same question have been inconsistent.

Of these studies, he pointed to the ATLANTIS trial, presented 2 months ago at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This study failed to show an advantage for the DOAC apixaban over VKA in TAVR patients for the primary composite outcome of time to death, myocardial infarction, systemic emboli, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. Although this study was not limited to patients with an indication for oral anticoagulants, Dr. Giacoppo pointed out that there was no advantage, even among the subgroup of patients who did have an indication.
 

Data are supportive in absence of trial results

In general, Dr. Giacoppo agreed that the French registry are generally supportive of DOACs over VKA in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he cautioned that blanket statements are difficult. He anticipates better information from a randomized trial called ENVISAGE-TAVI AF, which is comparing edoxaban with VKA following TAVR in atrial fibrillation patients who have an indication for oral anticoagulation, but he indicated that some individualization of choice will be needed among those high or low relative risks of thrombotic events or bleeding.

“The concerns related to DOACs after TAVR are most confined to patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Giacoppo said in an interview. In patients with an indication, “oral anticoagulation alone without antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced the risk of bleeding” in several studies, he added, citing in particular the POPular TAVI trial.

Issues about when to employ – or not employ – both oral anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy based on such factors as bleeding risk remain unresolved, but “in aggregate, waiting for additional high-quality data, the use of a DOAC in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent TAVR seems to be safe,” Dr. Giacoppo said. He thinks that the “higher predictability of DOACS compared to vitamin K antagonists might translate into lower bleeding rates over time in a real-world, unselected population.”
 

Benefit-to-risk ratio requires attention

A similar concern about balancing risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in TAVR patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation was emphasized by Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, MedStar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center.

“The TAVR population is elderly in general and so are at high risk for bleeding with any additional anticoagulation,” Dr. Waksman said. He cited data that bring into question the utility of using a DOAC in TAVR patients without an additional indication for anticoagulation, but he believes DOACs do make sense in those who were on and had an indication for a DOAC even before TAVR.

Patients who had atrial fibrillation or another indication “should continue to take the DOAC after TAVR. This population can be assumed to have less bleeding risk as they are vetted as safe for DOACs before their TAVR procedure,” he said.

Although mortality was the primary endpoint of the French registry evaluation, it is the bleeding risk that is a dominant concern, according to Romain Didier, MD, PhD, the first author of this study who performed this work in collaboration with Dr. Gilard.

“We really believe that VKA use in real life after TAVR, even with INR monitoring, is associated with a higher risk of bleeding as compared to DOACs,” he said. It is for this reason that “we currently use DOACs as a first choice in patients who require anticoagulant after TAVR.”

Dr. Gilard, Dr. Didier, and Dr. Giacoppo reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waksman reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, MedAlliance, Medtronic, and Pi-Cardia.

Only 1 child from a cohort of 45 children hospitalized with multisystem inflammatory syndrome following COVID-19 infection had persistent mild cardiac dysfunction after 9 months, according to data from patients younger than 21 years seen at a single center in 2020.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Kanwal M. Farooqi, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues provided the first report on longitudinal cardiac and immunologic outcomes in North American children hospitalized with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians at New York–Presbyterian Hospital consolidated pediatric admissions and developed an interdisciplinary inpatient and outpatient MIS-C follow-up program to monitor cardiac and immunologic outcomes in their patients.

The study included all children younger than 21 years admitted to Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital for MIS-C in 2020. The median age of the patients was 9 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 5 days. Follow-up visits occurred at 1-4 weeks (average 2 weeks), 1-4 months (average 2 months), and 4-9 months (average 6 months) after hospital discharge. Follow-up visits included echocardiograms and measures of inflammatory markers.

Most of the children (84%) had no underlying medical conditions, but 24% presented with some level of respiratory distress or oxygen requirement, and 64% had vasodilatory shock. In addition, 80% had at least mild cardiac abnormalities and 66% had significant lymphopenia on admission.

Inflammatory profiles on admission showed elevation of C-reactive protein, ferritin, and D-dimer in 87%-98% of the patients. Consistent with cardiac involvement, 64% of the patients also had elevated troponin levels, and 91% had elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels.

“These parameters peaked at or shortly after admission and then gradually normalized,” the researchers said. “By the first follow-up, [C-reactive protein], troponin, and NT-proBNP had normalized in nearly all tested patients (97%-100%),” they noted.

By the first follow-up period at 1-4 weeks, all patients had normal coronary arteries, and 18% (seven patients) had mild echocardiographic findings. However, approximately one-third (32%) of the patients had persistent lymphocytosis at 1-4 weeks, and 23 of the 24 patients assessed had elevated double-negative T cells, which persisted in 96% of the patients at 1-4 months’ follow-up. However, during the last follow-up of 4-9 months, only one patient had persistent mild biventricular dysfunction and a second patient had mild mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation.

All patients were treated with steroids and immunoglobulins (2 g/kg), as well as enoxaparin prophylaxis or low-dose aspirin and GI prophylaxis. Treatment with methylprednisolone varied based on disease severity; patients with mild presentation received 2 mg/kg per day; those with moderate presentation received a methylprednisolone pulse of 10 mg/kg per day, followed by 2 mg/kg per day; those with severe disease received methylprednisolone at 20-30 mg/kg per day for 1-3 days, followed by 2 mg/kg per day.

“Aggressive use of steroids may also explain the lower incidence of coronary artery abnormalities in our cohort,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by the observational design and inability to make definitive conclusions about treatment and outcomes, as well as the evolving case definitions for MIS-C, the researchers said.

The persistence of double-negative T cells was surprising, and “likely represent a prolonged postinflammatory recovery cell population, but further study is ongoing to better define this observation,” they noted.

“Our study reveals generally encouraging medium-term outcomes, including rapid normalization of inflammatory markers and significant cardiac abnormalities in the majority of patients with MIS-C,” the researchers said. “The exact nature and potential for long-term cardiac fibrosis, exercise intolerance, or other changes remain unknown,” and long-term caution and follow-up are recommended, they concluded.
 

Cautious optimism, long-term monitoring

The study is important to provide guidance for clinicians on how to manage their patients who have been hospitalized with MIS-C, said Susan Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“It was both surprising and reassuring to see that so many of the patients had positive outcomes in terms of cardiac function and that during the acute stage there were no deaths,” said Dr. Boulter. “Hospitalizations were brief, averaging just 5 days. The patients had many symptoms, but unlike adults, there was not a preponderance of underlying risk factors in this cohort of patients,” she said.

The results suggest optimism for MIS-C patients in that they generally recover, but the take-home message for clinicians is that these patients will require careful monitoring for long-term issues, Dr. Boulter said.

“These patients should be followed for years to assess long-term effects on morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

The study was funded by Genentech. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Only 1 child from a cohort of 45 children hospitalized with multisystem inflammatory syndrome following COVID-19 infection had persistent mild cardiac dysfunction after 9 months, according to data from patients younger than 21 years seen at a single center in 2020.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Kanwal M. Farooqi, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues provided the first report on longitudinal cardiac and immunologic outcomes in North American children hospitalized with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians at New York–Presbyterian Hospital consolidated pediatric admissions and developed an interdisciplinary inpatient and outpatient MIS-C follow-up program to monitor cardiac and immunologic outcomes in their patients.

The study included all children younger than 21 years admitted to Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital for MIS-C in 2020. The median age of the patients was 9 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 5 days. Follow-up visits occurred at 1-4 weeks (average 2 weeks), 1-4 months (average 2 months), and 4-9 months (average 6 months) after hospital discharge. Follow-up visits included echocardiograms and measures of inflammatory markers.

Most of the children (84%) had no underlying medical conditions, but 24% presented with some level of respiratory distress or oxygen requirement, and 64% had vasodilatory shock. In addition, 80% had at least mild cardiac abnormalities and 66% had significant lymphopenia on admission.

Inflammatory profiles on admission showed elevation of C-reactive protein, ferritin, and D-dimer in 87%-98% of the patients. Consistent with cardiac involvement, 64% of the patients also had elevated troponin levels, and 91% had elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels.

“These parameters peaked at or shortly after admission and then gradually normalized,” the researchers said. “By the first follow-up, [C-reactive protein], troponin, and NT-proBNP had normalized in nearly all tested patients (97%-100%),” they noted.

By the first follow-up period at 1-4 weeks, all patients had normal coronary arteries, and 18% (seven patients) had mild echocardiographic findings. However, approximately one-third (32%) of the patients had persistent lymphocytosis at 1-4 weeks, and 23 of the 24 patients assessed had elevated double-negative T cells, which persisted in 96% of the patients at 1-4 months’ follow-up. However, during the last follow-up of 4-9 months, only one patient had persistent mild biventricular dysfunction and a second patient had mild mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation.

All patients were treated with steroids and immunoglobulins (2 g/kg), as well as enoxaparin prophylaxis or low-dose aspirin and GI prophylaxis. Treatment with methylprednisolone varied based on disease severity; patients with mild presentation received 2 mg/kg per day; those with moderate presentation received a methylprednisolone pulse of 10 mg/kg per day, followed by 2 mg/kg per day; those with severe disease received methylprednisolone at 20-30 mg/kg per day for 1-3 days, followed by 2 mg/kg per day.

“Aggressive use of steroids may also explain the lower incidence of coronary artery abnormalities in our cohort,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by the observational design and inability to make definitive conclusions about treatment and outcomes, as well as the evolving case definitions for MIS-C, the researchers said.

The persistence of double-negative T cells was surprising, and “likely represent a prolonged postinflammatory recovery cell population, but further study is ongoing to better define this observation,” they noted.

“Our study reveals generally encouraging medium-term outcomes, including rapid normalization of inflammatory markers and significant cardiac abnormalities in the majority of patients with MIS-C,” the researchers said. “The exact nature and potential for long-term cardiac fibrosis, exercise intolerance, or other changes remain unknown,” and long-term caution and follow-up are recommended, they concluded.
 

Cautious optimism, long-term monitoring

The study is important to provide guidance for clinicians on how to manage their patients who have been hospitalized with MIS-C, said Susan Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“It was both surprising and reassuring to see that so many of the patients had positive outcomes in terms of cardiac function and that during the acute stage there were no deaths,” said Dr. Boulter. “Hospitalizations were brief, averaging just 5 days. The patients had many symptoms, but unlike adults, there was not a preponderance of underlying risk factors in this cohort of patients,” she said.

The results suggest optimism for MIS-C patients in that they generally recover, but the take-home message for clinicians is that these patients will require careful monitoring for long-term issues, Dr. Boulter said.

“These patients should be followed for years to assess long-term effects on morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

The study was funded by Genentech. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Only 1 child from a cohort of 45 children hospitalized with multisystem inflammatory syndrome following COVID-19 infection had persistent mild cardiac dysfunction after 9 months, according to data from patients younger than 21 years seen at a single center in 2020.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Kanwal M. Farooqi, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues provided the first report on longitudinal cardiac and immunologic outcomes in North American children hospitalized with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians at New York–Presbyterian Hospital consolidated pediatric admissions and developed an interdisciplinary inpatient and outpatient MIS-C follow-up program to monitor cardiac and immunologic outcomes in their patients.

The study included all children younger than 21 years admitted to Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital for MIS-C in 2020. The median age of the patients was 9 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 5 days. Follow-up visits occurred at 1-4 weeks (average 2 weeks), 1-4 months (average 2 months), and 4-9 months (average 6 months) after hospital discharge. Follow-up visits included echocardiograms and measures of inflammatory markers.

Most of the children (84%) had no underlying medical conditions, but 24% presented with some level of respiratory distress or oxygen requirement, and 64% had vasodilatory shock. In addition, 80% had at least mild cardiac abnormalities and 66% had significant lymphopenia on admission.

Inflammatory profiles on admission showed elevation of C-reactive protein, ferritin, and D-dimer in 87%-98% of the patients. Consistent with cardiac involvement, 64% of the patients also had elevated troponin levels, and 91% had elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels.

“These parameters peaked at or shortly after admission and then gradually normalized,” the researchers said. “By the first follow-up, [C-reactive protein], troponin, and NT-proBNP had normalized in nearly all tested patients (97%-100%),” they noted.

By the first follow-up period at 1-4 weeks, all patients had normal coronary arteries, and 18% (seven patients) had mild echocardiographic findings. However, approximately one-third (32%) of the patients had persistent lymphocytosis at 1-4 weeks, and 23 of the 24 patients assessed had elevated double-negative T cells, which persisted in 96% of the patients at 1-4 months’ follow-up. However, during the last follow-up of 4-9 months, only one patient had persistent mild biventricular dysfunction and a second patient had mild mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation.

All patients were treated with steroids and immunoglobulins (2 g/kg), as well as enoxaparin prophylaxis or low-dose aspirin and GI prophylaxis. Treatment with methylprednisolone varied based on disease severity; patients with mild presentation received 2 mg/kg per day; those with moderate presentation received a methylprednisolone pulse of 10 mg/kg per day, followed by 2 mg/kg per day; those with severe disease received methylprednisolone at 20-30 mg/kg per day for 1-3 days, followed by 2 mg/kg per day.

“Aggressive use of steroids may also explain the lower incidence of coronary artery abnormalities in our cohort,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by the observational design and inability to make definitive conclusions about treatment and outcomes, as well as the evolving case definitions for MIS-C, the researchers said.

The persistence of double-negative T cells was surprising, and “likely represent a prolonged postinflammatory recovery cell population, but further study is ongoing to better define this observation,” they noted.

“Our study reveals generally encouraging medium-term outcomes, including rapid normalization of inflammatory markers and significant cardiac abnormalities in the majority of patients with MIS-C,” the researchers said. “The exact nature and potential for long-term cardiac fibrosis, exercise intolerance, or other changes remain unknown,” and long-term caution and follow-up are recommended, they concluded.
 

Cautious optimism, long-term monitoring

The study is important to provide guidance for clinicians on how to manage their patients who have been hospitalized with MIS-C, said Susan Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“It was both surprising and reassuring to see that so many of the patients had positive outcomes in terms of cardiac function and that during the acute stage there were no deaths,” said Dr. Boulter. “Hospitalizations were brief, averaging just 5 days. The patients had many symptoms, but unlike adults, there was not a preponderance of underlying risk factors in this cohort of patients,” she said.

The results suggest optimism for MIS-C patients in that they generally recover, but the take-home message for clinicians is that these patients will require careful monitoring for long-term issues, Dr. Boulter said.

“These patients should be followed for years to assess long-term effects on morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

The study was funded by Genentech. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, according to the results of a new study.

These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.

“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.

The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.

Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
 

Methods and results

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.

After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.

The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians

Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.

Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.

“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
 

Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.

Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.

“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”

Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
 

Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator

“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”

Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk

While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.

“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.

Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.

“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”

Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.

According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.

“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.

“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”

According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”

“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.

In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.

“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.

The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”

At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.

The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”

The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.

“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”

Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.

To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, according to the results of a new study.

These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.

“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.

The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.

Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
 

Methods and results

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.

After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.

The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians

Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.

Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.

“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
 

Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.

Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.

“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”

Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
 

Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator

“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”

Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk

While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.

“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.

Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.

“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”

Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.

According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.

“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.

“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”

According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”

“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.

In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.

“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.

The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”

At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.

The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”

The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.

“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”

Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.

To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, according to the results of a new study.

These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.

“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.

The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.

Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
 

Methods and results

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.

After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.

The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians

Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.

Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.

“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
 

Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.

Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.

“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”

Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
 

Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator

“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”

Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk

While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.

“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.

Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.

“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”

Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.

According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.

“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.

“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”

According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”

“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.

In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.

“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.

The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”

At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.

The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”

The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.

“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”

Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.

To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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