Cardiology

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration is recommending patients and caregivers keep cell phones and smart watches at least 6 inches away from implanted medical devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The warning, published on May 13, comes on the heels of recent research reporting that high–field strength magnets in newer smartphones may cause some implanted medical devices to switch to “magnet mode” and suspend normal lifesaving operations until the magnet is moved away.

This, for example, may cause a cardiac defibrillator to be unable to detect tachycardia events, the agency noted. The magnets may also change the operational mode such as turning on asynchronous mode in a pacemaker.

“The FDA is aware of published articles which describe the effect that sufficiently strong magnetic fields can turn on the magnetic safe mode when in close contact,” it said. “The FDA also conducted its own testing on some products that use the high–field strength magnet feature and have confirmed the magnetic field is both consistent with the publications and strong enough to turn on the magnetic safety mode of the medical devices in question.”

The FDA said it believes the risk to patients is low and is not aware of any adverse events associated with this issue at this time.

The American Heart Association has also cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers.

The FDA offered the following simple precautions for individuals with implanted medical devices:

• Keep the consumer electronics, such as certain cell phones and smart watches, 6 inches away from implanted medical devices.
• Do not carry consumer electronics in a pocket over the medical device.
• Check your device using your home monitoring system, if you have one.
• Talk to your health care provider if you are experiencing any symptoms or have questions regarding magnets in consumer electronics and implanted medical devices.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is recommending patients and caregivers keep cell phones and smart watches at least 6 inches away from implanted medical devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The warning, published on May 13, comes on the heels of recent research reporting that high–field strength magnets in newer smartphones may cause some implanted medical devices to switch to “magnet mode” and suspend normal lifesaving operations until the magnet is moved away.

This, for example, may cause a cardiac defibrillator to be unable to detect tachycardia events, the agency noted. The magnets may also change the operational mode such as turning on asynchronous mode in a pacemaker.

“The FDA is aware of published articles which describe the effect that sufficiently strong magnetic fields can turn on the magnetic safe mode when in close contact,” it said. “The FDA also conducted its own testing on some products that use the high–field strength magnet feature and have confirmed the magnetic field is both consistent with the publications and strong enough to turn on the magnetic safety mode of the medical devices in question.”

The FDA said it believes the risk to patients is low and is not aware of any adverse events associated with this issue at this time.

The American Heart Association has also cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers.

The FDA offered the following simple precautions for individuals with implanted medical devices:

• Keep the consumer electronics, such as certain cell phones and smart watches, 6 inches away from implanted medical devices.
• Do not carry consumer electronics in a pocket over the medical device.
• Check your device using your home monitoring system, if you have one.
• Talk to your health care provider if you are experiencing any symptoms or have questions regarding magnets in consumer electronics and implanted medical devices.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is recommending patients and caregivers keep cell phones and smart watches at least 6 inches away from implanted medical devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The warning, published on May 13, comes on the heels of recent research reporting that high–field strength magnets in newer smartphones may cause some implanted medical devices to switch to “magnet mode” and suspend normal lifesaving operations until the magnet is moved away.

This, for example, may cause a cardiac defibrillator to be unable to detect tachycardia events, the agency noted. The magnets may also change the operational mode such as turning on asynchronous mode in a pacemaker.

“The FDA is aware of published articles which describe the effect that sufficiently strong magnetic fields can turn on the magnetic safe mode when in close contact,” it said. “The FDA also conducted its own testing on some products that use the high–field strength magnet feature and have confirmed the magnetic field is both consistent with the publications and strong enough to turn on the magnetic safety mode of the medical devices in question.”

The FDA said it believes the risk to patients is low and is not aware of any adverse events associated with this issue at this time.

The American Heart Association has also cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers.

The FDA offered the following simple precautions for individuals with implanted medical devices:

• Keep the consumer electronics, such as certain cell phones and smart watches, 6 inches away from implanted medical devices.
• Do not carry consumer electronics in a pocket over the medical device.
• Check your device using your home monitoring system, if you have one.
• Talk to your health care provider if you are experiencing any symptoms or have questions regarding magnets in consumer electronics and implanted medical devices.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two experts scoured the medical journals for the practice-changing research most relevant to hospital medicine in 2020 at a recent session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The presenters chose findings they considered either practice changing or practice confirming, and in areas over which hospitalists have at least some control. Here is what they highlighted:
 

IV iron administration before hospital discharge

In a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 121 centers in Europe, South America, and Singapore, 1,108 patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and iron deficiency were randomized to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, with a first dose before discharge and a second at 6 weeks.

Those in the intravenous iron group had a significant reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure up to 52 weeks after randomization, but there was no significant reduction in deaths because of heart failure. There was no difference in serious adverse events.

Anthony Breu, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings should alter hospitalist practice.

“In patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, check iron studies and start IV iron prior to discharge if they have iron deficiency, with or without anemia,” he said.
 

Apixaban versus dalteparin for venous thromboembolism in cancer

This noninferiority trial involved 1,155 adults with cancer who had symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The patients were randomized to receive oral apixaban or subcutaneous dalteparin for 6 months.

Patients in the apixaban group had a significantly lower rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism (P = .09), with no increase in major bleeds, Dr. Breu said. He noted that those with brain cancer and leukemia were excluded.

“In patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism, consider apixaban as your first-line treatment, with some caveats,” he said.
 

Clinical decision rule for penicillin allergy

With fewer than 10% of patients who report a penicillin allergy actually testing positive on a standard allergy test, a simpler way to predict an allergy would help clinicians, said Shoshana Herzig, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

A 622-patient cohort that had undergone penicillin allergy testing was used to identify factors that could help predict an allergy. A scoring system called PEN-FAST was developed based on five factors – a penicillin allergy reported by the patient, 5 years or less since the last reaction (2 points); anaphylaxis or angioedema, or severe cutaneous adverse reaction (2 points); and treatment being required for the reaction (1 point).

Researchers, after validation at three sites, found that a score below a threshold identified a group that had a 96% negative predictive value for penicillin allergy skin testing.

“A PEN-FAST score of less than 3 can be used to identify patients with reported penicillin allergy who can likely proceed safely to oral challenge,” Dr. Herzig said. She said the findings would benefit from validation in an inpatient setting.
 

Prehydration before contrast-enhanced computed tomography in CKD

Previous studies have found that omitting prehydration was noninferior to volume expansion with isotonic saline, and this trial looked at omission versus sodium bicarbonate hydration.

Participants were 523 adults with stage 3 chronic kidney disease who were getting elective outpatient CT with contrast. They were randomized to either no prehydration or prehydration with 250 mL of 1.4% sodium bicarbonate an hour before CT.

Researchers found that postcontrast acute kidney injury was rare even in this high-risk patient population overall, and that withholding prehydration was noninferior to prehydration with sodium bicarbonate, Dr. Herzig said.
 

Gabapentin for alcohol use disorder in those with alcohol withdrawal symptoms

Dr. Breu noted that only about one in five patients with alcohol use disorder receive medications to help preserve abstinence or to reduce drinking, and many medications target cravings but not symptoms of withdrawal.

In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial at a single academic outpatient medical center in South Carolina, 90 patients were randomized to receive titrated gabapentin or placebo for 16 weeks.

Researchers found that, among those with abstinence of at least 2 days, gabapentin reduced the number of days of heavy drinking and the days of any drinking, especially in those with high symptoms of withdrawal.

“In patients with alcohol use disorder and high alcohol withdrawal symptoms, consider gabapentin to help reduce heavy drinking or maintain abstinence,” Dr. Breu said.
 

Hospitalist continuity of care and patient outcomes

In a retrospective study examining all medical admissions of Medicare patients with a 3- to 6-day length of stay, and in which all general medical care was provided by hospitalists, researchers examined the effects of continuity of care. Nearly 115,000 patient stays were included in the study, which covered 229 Texas hospitals.

The stays were grouped into quartiles of continuity of care, based on the number of hospitalists involved in a patient’s stay. Greater continuity was associated with lower 30-day mortality, with a linear relationship between the two. Researchers also found costs to be lower as continuity increased.

“Efforts by hospitals and hospitalist groups to promote working schedules with more continuity,” Dr. Herzig said, “could lead to improved postdischarge outcomes.”


 

Two experts scoured the medical journals for the practice-changing research most relevant to hospital medicine in 2020 at a recent session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The presenters chose findings they considered either practice changing or practice confirming, and in areas over which hospitalists have at least some control. Here is what they highlighted:
 

IV iron administration before hospital discharge

In a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 121 centers in Europe, South America, and Singapore, 1,108 patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and iron deficiency were randomized to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, with a first dose before discharge and a second at 6 weeks.

Those in the intravenous iron group had a significant reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure up to 52 weeks after randomization, but there was no significant reduction in deaths because of heart failure. There was no difference in serious adverse events.

Anthony Breu, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings should alter hospitalist practice.

“In patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, check iron studies and start IV iron prior to discharge if they have iron deficiency, with or without anemia,” he said.
 

Apixaban versus dalteparin for venous thromboembolism in cancer

This noninferiority trial involved 1,155 adults with cancer who had symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The patients were randomized to receive oral apixaban or subcutaneous dalteparin for 6 months.

Patients in the apixaban group had a significantly lower rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism (P = .09), with no increase in major bleeds, Dr. Breu said. He noted that those with brain cancer and leukemia were excluded.

“In patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism, consider apixaban as your first-line treatment, with some caveats,” he said.
 

Clinical decision rule for penicillin allergy

With fewer than 10% of patients who report a penicillin allergy actually testing positive on a standard allergy test, a simpler way to predict an allergy would help clinicians, said Shoshana Herzig, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

A 622-patient cohort that had undergone penicillin allergy testing was used to identify factors that could help predict an allergy. A scoring system called PEN-FAST was developed based on five factors – a penicillin allergy reported by the patient, 5 years or less since the last reaction (2 points); anaphylaxis or angioedema, or severe cutaneous adverse reaction (2 points); and treatment being required for the reaction (1 point).

Researchers, after validation at three sites, found that a score below a threshold identified a group that had a 96% negative predictive value for penicillin allergy skin testing.

“A PEN-FAST score of less than 3 can be used to identify patients with reported penicillin allergy who can likely proceed safely to oral challenge,” Dr. Herzig said. She said the findings would benefit from validation in an inpatient setting.
 

Prehydration before contrast-enhanced computed tomography in CKD

Previous studies have found that omitting prehydration was noninferior to volume expansion with isotonic saline, and this trial looked at omission versus sodium bicarbonate hydration.

Participants were 523 adults with stage 3 chronic kidney disease who were getting elective outpatient CT with contrast. They were randomized to either no prehydration or prehydration with 250 mL of 1.4% sodium bicarbonate an hour before CT.

Researchers found that postcontrast acute kidney injury was rare even in this high-risk patient population overall, and that withholding prehydration was noninferior to prehydration with sodium bicarbonate, Dr. Herzig said.
 

Gabapentin for alcohol use disorder in those with alcohol withdrawal symptoms

Dr. Breu noted that only about one in five patients with alcohol use disorder receive medications to help preserve abstinence or to reduce drinking, and many medications target cravings but not symptoms of withdrawal.

In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial at a single academic outpatient medical center in South Carolina, 90 patients were randomized to receive titrated gabapentin or placebo for 16 weeks.

Researchers found that, among those with abstinence of at least 2 days, gabapentin reduced the number of days of heavy drinking and the days of any drinking, especially in those with high symptoms of withdrawal.

“In patients with alcohol use disorder and high alcohol withdrawal symptoms, consider gabapentin to help reduce heavy drinking or maintain abstinence,” Dr. Breu said.
 

Hospitalist continuity of care and patient outcomes

In a retrospective study examining all medical admissions of Medicare patients with a 3- to 6-day length of stay, and in which all general medical care was provided by hospitalists, researchers examined the effects of continuity of care. Nearly 115,000 patient stays were included in the study, which covered 229 Texas hospitals.

The stays were grouped into quartiles of continuity of care, based on the number of hospitalists involved in a patient’s stay. Greater continuity was associated with lower 30-day mortality, with a linear relationship between the two. Researchers also found costs to be lower as continuity increased.

“Efforts by hospitals and hospitalist groups to promote working schedules with more continuity,” Dr. Herzig said, “could lead to improved postdischarge outcomes.”


 

Two experts scoured the medical journals for the practice-changing research most relevant to hospital medicine in 2020 at a recent session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The presenters chose findings they considered either practice changing or practice confirming, and in areas over which hospitalists have at least some control. Here is what they highlighted:
 

IV iron administration before hospital discharge

In a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 121 centers in Europe, South America, and Singapore, 1,108 patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and iron deficiency were randomized to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, with a first dose before discharge and a second at 6 weeks.

Those in the intravenous iron group had a significant reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure up to 52 weeks after randomization, but there was no significant reduction in deaths because of heart failure. There was no difference in serious adverse events.

Anthony Breu, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings should alter hospitalist practice.

“In patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, check iron studies and start IV iron prior to discharge if they have iron deficiency, with or without anemia,” he said.
 

Apixaban versus dalteparin for venous thromboembolism in cancer

This noninferiority trial involved 1,155 adults with cancer who had symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The patients were randomized to receive oral apixaban or subcutaneous dalteparin for 6 months.

Patients in the apixaban group had a significantly lower rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism (P = .09), with no increase in major bleeds, Dr. Breu said. He noted that those with brain cancer and leukemia were excluded.

“In patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism, consider apixaban as your first-line treatment, with some caveats,” he said.
 

Clinical decision rule for penicillin allergy

With fewer than 10% of patients who report a penicillin allergy actually testing positive on a standard allergy test, a simpler way to predict an allergy would help clinicians, said Shoshana Herzig, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

A 622-patient cohort that had undergone penicillin allergy testing was used to identify factors that could help predict an allergy. A scoring system called PEN-FAST was developed based on five factors – a penicillin allergy reported by the patient, 5 years or less since the last reaction (2 points); anaphylaxis or angioedema, or severe cutaneous adverse reaction (2 points); and treatment being required for the reaction (1 point).

Researchers, after validation at three sites, found that a score below a threshold identified a group that had a 96% negative predictive value for penicillin allergy skin testing.

“A PEN-FAST score of less than 3 can be used to identify patients with reported penicillin allergy who can likely proceed safely to oral challenge,” Dr. Herzig said. She said the findings would benefit from validation in an inpatient setting.
 

Prehydration before contrast-enhanced computed tomography in CKD

Previous studies have found that omitting prehydration was noninferior to volume expansion with isotonic saline, and this trial looked at omission versus sodium bicarbonate hydration.

Participants were 523 adults with stage 3 chronic kidney disease who were getting elective outpatient CT with contrast. They were randomized to either no prehydration or prehydration with 250 mL of 1.4% sodium bicarbonate an hour before CT.

Researchers found that postcontrast acute kidney injury was rare even in this high-risk patient population overall, and that withholding prehydration was noninferior to prehydration with sodium bicarbonate, Dr. Herzig said.
 

Gabapentin for alcohol use disorder in those with alcohol withdrawal symptoms

Dr. Breu noted that only about one in five patients with alcohol use disorder receive medications to help preserve abstinence or to reduce drinking, and many medications target cravings but not symptoms of withdrawal.

In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial at a single academic outpatient medical center in South Carolina, 90 patients were randomized to receive titrated gabapentin or placebo for 16 weeks.

Researchers found that, among those with abstinence of at least 2 days, gabapentin reduced the number of days of heavy drinking and the days of any drinking, especially in those with high symptoms of withdrawal.

“In patients with alcohol use disorder and high alcohol withdrawal symptoms, consider gabapentin to help reduce heavy drinking or maintain abstinence,” Dr. Breu said.
 

Hospitalist continuity of care and patient outcomes

In a retrospective study examining all medical admissions of Medicare patients with a 3- to 6-day length of stay, and in which all general medical care was provided by hospitalists, researchers examined the effects of continuity of care. Nearly 115,000 patient stays were included in the study, which covered 229 Texas hospitals.

The stays were grouped into quartiles of continuity of care, based on the number of hospitalists involved in a patient’s stay. Greater continuity was associated with lower 30-day mortality, with a linear relationship between the two. Researchers also found costs to be lower as continuity increased.

“Efforts by hospitals and hospitalist groups to promote working schedules with more continuity,” Dr. Herzig said, “could lead to improved postdischarge outcomes.”


 

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

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 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

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 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

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.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.