User login
FDA approves CV disease benefit for once-weekly semaglutide
(Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and has added new trial data information to the label of the oral version (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) pertaining to CV safety.
The agency expanded the once-weekly injectable semaglutide’s label to include an indication for reducing the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CV disease.
Initially approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults in December 2017, once-weekly subcutaneously injectable semaglutide comes in 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg doses in a dedicated prefilled pen device.
The approval for the new indication was based on data from the 2-year randomized Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6), in which injectable semaglutide or placebo was added to standard of care in 3,297 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.
As reported by Medscape Medical News in September 2016, patients who underwent treatment with one of the two doses of semaglutide had a significant 26% lower risk for the primary composite outcome of first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, compared with those who received placebo.
The reduced CV risk was driven primarily by significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and nonfatal MI (39% and 26%, respectively). There was no difference in CV death between drug and placebo groups. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide than placebo, with the majority occurring during the first 30 weeks.
The oral semaglutide formulation, taken daily in 7-mg or 14-mg doses, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in September 2019, the first orally available GLP-1 agonist.
Now, the FDA has updated the prescribing information in the clinical studies section (section 14) to include results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, 3,183-subject Trial Investigating the Cardiovascular Safety of Oral Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 6), reported in June 2019, which found a nonsignificant 21% reduction in three-component MACE with oral semaglutide. The addition to the label for Rybelsus is with regard to CV safety, not benefit.
SOUL: Large ongoing CV outcomes trial for oral semaglutide
In June 2019, Novo Nordisk initiated a larger CV outcomes trial of oral semaglutide, A Heart Disease Study of Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (SOUL). The trial, which includes 9,642 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease, is further investigating the drug’s effects on the incidence of MACE. The estimated completion date is July 2024.
Semaglutide joins a growing list of drugs approved for treating type 2 diabetes that have been granted additional label indications for benefits beyond the lowering of glucose.
These include Novo Nordisk’s other injectable GLP-1 agonist, liraglutide (Victoza), additionally approved for reducing CV events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, and the sodium-glucose transport 2 inhibitors empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly), for reducing CV death; canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen), for reducing major adverse CV events,; kidney disease, CV death, and heart failure hospitalization; and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca), for reducing heart failure hospitalization.
Recently, in an exclusive Medscape Medical News article, some experts questioned the design of these CV outcomes trials, suggesting that imbalances in glycemic control, blood pressure, and diuretic use between treatment and placebo arms could have biased the CV and renal outcomes of the trials in favor of the study drugs
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
(Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and has added new trial data information to the label of the oral version (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) pertaining to CV safety.
The agency expanded the once-weekly injectable semaglutide’s label to include an indication for reducing the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CV disease.
Initially approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults in December 2017, once-weekly subcutaneously injectable semaglutide comes in 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg doses in a dedicated prefilled pen device.
The approval for the new indication was based on data from the 2-year randomized Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6), in which injectable semaglutide or placebo was added to standard of care in 3,297 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.
As reported by Medscape Medical News in September 2016, patients who underwent treatment with one of the two doses of semaglutide had a significant 26% lower risk for the primary composite outcome of first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, compared with those who received placebo.
The reduced CV risk was driven primarily by significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and nonfatal MI (39% and 26%, respectively). There was no difference in CV death between drug and placebo groups. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide than placebo, with the majority occurring during the first 30 weeks.
The oral semaglutide formulation, taken daily in 7-mg or 14-mg doses, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in September 2019, the first orally available GLP-1 agonist.
Now, the FDA has updated the prescribing information in the clinical studies section (section 14) to include results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, 3,183-subject Trial Investigating the Cardiovascular Safety of Oral Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 6), reported in June 2019, which found a nonsignificant 21% reduction in three-component MACE with oral semaglutide. The addition to the label for Rybelsus is with regard to CV safety, not benefit.
SOUL: Large ongoing CV outcomes trial for oral semaglutide
In June 2019, Novo Nordisk initiated a larger CV outcomes trial of oral semaglutide, A Heart Disease Study of Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (SOUL). The trial, which includes 9,642 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease, is further investigating the drug’s effects on the incidence of MACE. The estimated completion date is July 2024.
Semaglutide joins a growing list of drugs approved for treating type 2 diabetes that have been granted additional label indications for benefits beyond the lowering of glucose.
These include Novo Nordisk’s other injectable GLP-1 agonist, liraglutide (Victoza), additionally approved for reducing CV events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, and the sodium-glucose transport 2 inhibitors empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly), for reducing CV death; canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen), for reducing major adverse CV events,; kidney disease, CV death, and heart failure hospitalization; and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca), for reducing heart failure hospitalization.
Recently, in an exclusive Medscape Medical News article, some experts questioned the design of these CV outcomes trials, suggesting that imbalances in glycemic control, blood pressure, and diuretic use between treatment and placebo arms could have biased the CV and renal outcomes of the trials in favor of the study drugs
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
(Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and has added new trial data information to the label of the oral version (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) pertaining to CV safety.
The agency expanded the once-weekly injectable semaglutide’s label to include an indication for reducing the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CV disease.
Initially approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults in December 2017, once-weekly subcutaneously injectable semaglutide comes in 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg doses in a dedicated prefilled pen device.
The approval for the new indication was based on data from the 2-year randomized Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6), in which injectable semaglutide or placebo was added to standard of care in 3,297 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.
As reported by Medscape Medical News in September 2016, patients who underwent treatment with one of the two doses of semaglutide had a significant 26% lower risk for the primary composite outcome of first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, compared with those who received placebo.
The reduced CV risk was driven primarily by significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and nonfatal MI (39% and 26%, respectively). There was no difference in CV death between drug and placebo groups. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide than placebo, with the majority occurring during the first 30 weeks.
The oral semaglutide formulation, taken daily in 7-mg or 14-mg doses, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in September 2019, the first orally available GLP-1 agonist.
Now, the FDA has updated the prescribing information in the clinical studies section (section 14) to include results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, 3,183-subject Trial Investigating the Cardiovascular Safety of Oral Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 6), reported in June 2019, which found a nonsignificant 21% reduction in three-component MACE with oral semaglutide. The addition to the label for Rybelsus is with regard to CV safety, not benefit.
SOUL: Large ongoing CV outcomes trial for oral semaglutide
In June 2019, Novo Nordisk initiated a larger CV outcomes trial of oral semaglutide, A Heart Disease Study of Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (SOUL). The trial, which includes 9,642 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease, is further investigating the drug’s effects on the incidence of MACE. The estimated completion date is July 2024.
Semaglutide joins a growing list of drugs approved for treating type 2 diabetes that have been granted additional label indications for benefits beyond the lowering of glucose.
These include Novo Nordisk’s other injectable GLP-1 agonist, liraglutide (Victoza), additionally approved for reducing CV events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, and the sodium-glucose transport 2 inhibitors empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly), for reducing CV death; canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen), for reducing major adverse CV events,; kidney disease, CV death, and heart failure hospitalization; and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca), for reducing heart failure hospitalization.
Recently, in an exclusive Medscape Medical News article, some experts questioned the design of these CV outcomes trials, suggesting that imbalances in glycemic control, blood pressure, and diuretic use between treatment and placebo arms could have biased the CV and renal outcomes of the trials in favor of the study drugs
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Are providers asking about menstrual bleeding before/during anticoagulant therapy?
ORLANDO – A small study suggests health care providers may fail to ask patients about heavy menstrual bleeding before or during treatment with oral anticoagulants.
Researchers performed a chart review at a single center, which indicated that 60% of women were not asked about heavy menstrual bleeding before they were prescribed an oral anticoagulant.
Six months after the women started anticoagulant therapy, 29% required treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Charts for the remaining 71% of women contained no information about heavy menstrual bleeding.
“We were unable to distinguish between true absence of heavy menstrual bleeding and absence of reporting,” said Bethany T. Samuelson Bannow, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Dr. Samuelson Bannow presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
She explained that heavy menstrual bleeding is defined as more than 80 mL of blood loss per cycle. It affects 10%-15% of women in their lifetime, and anticoagulants increase the risk of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Studies have shown that heavy menstrual bleeding occurs in 22%-65% of women treated with vitamin K agonists and 20%-27% of women treated with rivaroxaban (Blood. 2017;130[24]:2603-9). However, many anticoagulant studies don’t include heavy menstrual bleeding as an outcome.
To gain more insight, Dr. Samuelson Bannow and colleagues conducted a chart review. Their study included 236 women of reproductive age treated at Oregon Health & Science University between Jan. 1, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2018.
The patients’ median age was 37 years (range, 18-50 years). Most patients (67%) were receiving an oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolism. The rest were on anticoagulant therapy for arterial thrombosis (6%), atrial fibrillation (6%), a mechanical valve (1%), or “other” reasons (20%).
Dr. Samuelson Bannow said the other group was “almost exclusively women who were receiving prophylaxis” postoperatively or for travel. Most women in this group were receiving rivaroxaban.
Rivaroxaban was the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant in the entire cohort (41%), followed by warfarin (34%) and apixaban (25%).
At the time of anticoagulant prescription, 12% of women reported a history of heavy menstrual bleeding, and 28% did not. For most patients – 60% – there was no discussion of menstrual history documented.
Six months after starting oral anticoagulant therapy, 29% of patients required treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. For 71% of patients, there was no documentation on the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding was required in 33% of patients on rivaroxaban, 24% of those on apixaban, and 29% of those on warfarin, a significant difference (P less than .001).
“Rates of heavy menstrual bleeding … are higher in rivaroxaban users,” Dr. Samuelson Bannow said. “This is not the first study to demonstrate this. However, [the rate of heavy menstrual bleeding in this study] is still a lot lower than we would expect based on past levels with warfarin. This tells us we’re probably missing a lot of heavy menstrual bleeding. That’s not too surprising considering how few providers are actually asking about the menses.”
Dr. Samuelson Bannow and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Samuelson Bannow BT et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 60.
ORLANDO – A small study suggests health care providers may fail to ask patients about heavy menstrual bleeding before or during treatment with oral anticoagulants.
Researchers performed a chart review at a single center, which indicated that 60% of women were not asked about heavy menstrual bleeding before they were prescribed an oral anticoagulant.
Six months after the women started anticoagulant therapy, 29% required treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Charts for the remaining 71% of women contained no information about heavy menstrual bleeding.
“We were unable to distinguish between true absence of heavy menstrual bleeding and absence of reporting,” said Bethany T. Samuelson Bannow, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Dr. Samuelson Bannow presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
She explained that heavy menstrual bleeding is defined as more than 80 mL of blood loss per cycle. It affects 10%-15% of women in their lifetime, and anticoagulants increase the risk of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Studies have shown that heavy menstrual bleeding occurs in 22%-65% of women treated with vitamin K agonists and 20%-27% of women treated with rivaroxaban (Blood. 2017;130[24]:2603-9). However, many anticoagulant studies don’t include heavy menstrual bleeding as an outcome.
To gain more insight, Dr. Samuelson Bannow and colleagues conducted a chart review. Their study included 236 women of reproductive age treated at Oregon Health & Science University between Jan. 1, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2018.
The patients’ median age was 37 years (range, 18-50 years). Most patients (67%) were receiving an oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolism. The rest were on anticoagulant therapy for arterial thrombosis (6%), atrial fibrillation (6%), a mechanical valve (1%), or “other” reasons (20%).
Dr. Samuelson Bannow said the other group was “almost exclusively women who were receiving prophylaxis” postoperatively or for travel. Most women in this group were receiving rivaroxaban.
Rivaroxaban was the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant in the entire cohort (41%), followed by warfarin (34%) and apixaban (25%).
At the time of anticoagulant prescription, 12% of women reported a history of heavy menstrual bleeding, and 28% did not. For most patients – 60% – there was no discussion of menstrual history documented.
Six months after starting oral anticoagulant therapy, 29% of patients required treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. For 71% of patients, there was no documentation on the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding was required in 33% of patients on rivaroxaban, 24% of those on apixaban, and 29% of those on warfarin, a significant difference (P less than .001).
“Rates of heavy menstrual bleeding … are higher in rivaroxaban users,” Dr. Samuelson Bannow said. “This is not the first study to demonstrate this. However, [the rate of heavy menstrual bleeding in this study] is still a lot lower than we would expect based on past levels with warfarin. This tells us we’re probably missing a lot of heavy menstrual bleeding. That’s not too surprising considering how few providers are actually asking about the menses.”
Dr. Samuelson Bannow and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Samuelson Bannow BT et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 60.
ORLANDO – A small study suggests health care providers may fail to ask patients about heavy menstrual bleeding before or during treatment with oral anticoagulants.
Researchers performed a chart review at a single center, which indicated that 60% of women were not asked about heavy menstrual bleeding before they were prescribed an oral anticoagulant.
Six months after the women started anticoagulant therapy, 29% required treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Charts for the remaining 71% of women contained no information about heavy menstrual bleeding.
“We were unable to distinguish between true absence of heavy menstrual bleeding and absence of reporting,” said Bethany T. Samuelson Bannow, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Dr. Samuelson Bannow presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
She explained that heavy menstrual bleeding is defined as more than 80 mL of blood loss per cycle. It affects 10%-15% of women in their lifetime, and anticoagulants increase the risk of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Studies have shown that heavy menstrual bleeding occurs in 22%-65% of women treated with vitamin K agonists and 20%-27% of women treated with rivaroxaban (Blood. 2017;130[24]:2603-9). However, many anticoagulant studies don’t include heavy menstrual bleeding as an outcome.
To gain more insight, Dr. Samuelson Bannow and colleagues conducted a chart review. Their study included 236 women of reproductive age treated at Oregon Health & Science University between Jan. 1, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2018.
The patients’ median age was 37 years (range, 18-50 years). Most patients (67%) were receiving an oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolism. The rest were on anticoagulant therapy for arterial thrombosis (6%), atrial fibrillation (6%), a mechanical valve (1%), or “other” reasons (20%).
Dr. Samuelson Bannow said the other group was “almost exclusively women who were receiving prophylaxis” postoperatively or for travel. Most women in this group were receiving rivaroxaban.
Rivaroxaban was the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant in the entire cohort (41%), followed by warfarin (34%) and apixaban (25%).
At the time of anticoagulant prescription, 12% of women reported a history of heavy menstrual bleeding, and 28% did not. For most patients – 60% – there was no discussion of menstrual history documented.
Six months after starting oral anticoagulant therapy, 29% of patients required treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. For 71% of patients, there was no documentation on the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
Treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding was required in 33% of patients on rivaroxaban, 24% of those on apixaban, and 29% of those on warfarin, a significant difference (P less than .001).
“Rates of heavy menstrual bleeding … are higher in rivaroxaban users,” Dr. Samuelson Bannow said. “This is not the first study to demonstrate this. However, [the rate of heavy menstrual bleeding in this study] is still a lot lower than we would expect based on past levels with warfarin. This tells us we’re probably missing a lot of heavy menstrual bleeding. That’s not too surprising considering how few providers are actually asking about the menses.”
Dr. Samuelson Bannow and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Samuelson Bannow BT et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 60.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2019
Liver fibrosis scores predict CV event risk associated with NAFLD
Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in a prospective observational study had a twofold increase in cardiovascular events, .
At median follow-up of 41.4 months representing 3,044.4 person-years of observation in the Progression of Liver Damage and Cardiometabolic Disorders in NAFLD (PLINIO) study, 58 cardiovascular events (CVEs) were reported in 898 consecutive outpatients who were screened for liver steatosis by ultrasound. The annual rate of CVEs among 643 patients with NAFLD was 2.1%, compared with 1.0% among 255 patients without NAFLD, according to Francesco Baratta, MD, of Clinica Medica, Sapienza University of Rome, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The difference did not meet a priori thresholds for statistical significance (P = .066), but became significant after exclusion of new-onset atrial fibrillation events (annual CVE rates of 1.9% vs. 0.7%; P = .034), and on multivariate analysis, age, male sex, and NAFLD were found to be independently associated with CVE occurrence (hazard ratios, 1.07, 3.20, and 2.73, respectively), the investigators found.
In NAFLD patients, a NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) greater than 0.676 was significantly associated with CVEs after adjustment for comorbidities (HR, 2.29), and a Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score greater than 2.67, a history of cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome predicted incident CVEs (HRs, 4.57, 2.95, and 2.30, respectively). The findings were similar after exclusion of new-onset atrial fibrillation from the composite endpoint (HRs, 2.42 and 4.00, respectively).
“Furthermore, when we analyzed only patients without CVEs at baseline, we found a similar association between liver fibrosis and CVEs,” the researchers wrote, noting that the adjusted HRs for NFS were 2.50 and 4.28, respectively.
In addition to liver-related complications, patients with NAFLD are known to have an increased CVE risk, and while liver fibrosis severity is used to determine prognosis, not all patients can undergo a liver biopsy to assess fibrosis. Therefore, there is a need to identify and validate noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis, but few data exist with respect to the predictive role of noninvasive scoring on CVEs, they said.
The findings of this study suggest the use of the NFS and FIB-4 score may reduce the need for liver biopsy by identifying NAFLD patients at higher risk of having advanced liver fibrosis. They further suggest that liver fibrosis development in patients with NAFLD “may be the result of a long-term exposure to cardiometabolic risk factors such as diabetes,” and that “the concomitant presence of multiple cardiometabolic conditions may induce a chronic low-grade proinflammatory and pro-oxidant status leading to liver inflammation (i.e., macrophage activation) and collagen deposition.”
The findings may also have clinical implications: “The association between liver fibrosis and cardiovascular risk supports a potential role for statin treatment in patients with NAFLD,” they explained.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Baratta F et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.026.
Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in a prospective observational study had a twofold increase in cardiovascular events, .
At median follow-up of 41.4 months representing 3,044.4 person-years of observation in the Progression of Liver Damage and Cardiometabolic Disorders in NAFLD (PLINIO) study, 58 cardiovascular events (CVEs) were reported in 898 consecutive outpatients who were screened for liver steatosis by ultrasound. The annual rate of CVEs among 643 patients with NAFLD was 2.1%, compared with 1.0% among 255 patients without NAFLD, according to Francesco Baratta, MD, of Clinica Medica, Sapienza University of Rome, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The difference did not meet a priori thresholds for statistical significance (P = .066), but became significant after exclusion of new-onset atrial fibrillation events (annual CVE rates of 1.9% vs. 0.7%; P = .034), and on multivariate analysis, age, male sex, and NAFLD were found to be independently associated with CVE occurrence (hazard ratios, 1.07, 3.20, and 2.73, respectively), the investigators found.
In NAFLD patients, a NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) greater than 0.676 was significantly associated with CVEs after adjustment for comorbidities (HR, 2.29), and a Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score greater than 2.67, a history of cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome predicted incident CVEs (HRs, 4.57, 2.95, and 2.30, respectively). The findings were similar after exclusion of new-onset atrial fibrillation from the composite endpoint (HRs, 2.42 and 4.00, respectively).
“Furthermore, when we analyzed only patients without CVEs at baseline, we found a similar association between liver fibrosis and CVEs,” the researchers wrote, noting that the adjusted HRs for NFS were 2.50 and 4.28, respectively.
In addition to liver-related complications, patients with NAFLD are known to have an increased CVE risk, and while liver fibrosis severity is used to determine prognosis, not all patients can undergo a liver biopsy to assess fibrosis. Therefore, there is a need to identify and validate noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis, but few data exist with respect to the predictive role of noninvasive scoring on CVEs, they said.
The findings of this study suggest the use of the NFS and FIB-4 score may reduce the need for liver biopsy by identifying NAFLD patients at higher risk of having advanced liver fibrosis. They further suggest that liver fibrosis development in patients with NAFLD “may be the result of a long-term exposure to cardiometabolic risk factors such as diabetes,” and that “the concomitant presence of multiple cardiometabolic conditions may induce a chronic low-grade proinflammatory and pro-oxidant status leading to liver inflammation (i.e., macrophage activation) and collagen deposition.”
The findings may also have clinical implications: “The association between liver fibrosis and cardiovascular risk supports a potential role for statin treatment in patients with NAFLD,” they explained.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Baratta F et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.026.
Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in a prospective observational study had a twofold increase in cardiovascular events, .
At median follow-up of 41.4 months representing 3,044.4 person-years of observation in the Progression of Liver Damage and Cardiometabolic Disorders in NAFLD (PLINIO) study, 58 cardiovascular events (CVEs) were reported in 898 consecutive outpatients who were screened for liver steatosis by ultrasound. The annual rate of CVEs among 643 patients with NAFLD was 2.1%, compared with 1.0% among 255 patients without NAFLD, according to Francesco Baratta, MD, of Clinica Medica, Sapienza University of Rome, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The difference did not meet a priori thresholds for statistical significance (P = .066), but became significant after exclusion of new-onset atrial fibrillation events (annual CVE rates of 1.9% vs. 0.7%; P = .034), and on multivariate analysis, age, male sex, and NAFLD were found to be independently associated with CVE occurrence (hazard ratios, 1.07, 3.20, and 2.73, respectively), the investigators found.
In NAFLD patients, a NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) greater than 0.676 was significantly associated with CVEs after adjustment for comorbidities (HR, 2.29), and a Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score greater than 2.67, a history of cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome predicted incident CVEs (HRs, 4.57, 2.95, and 2.30, respectively). The findings were similar after exclusion of new-onset atrial fibrillation from the composite endpoint (HRs, 2.42 and 4.00, respectively).
“Furthermore, when we analyzed only patients without CVEs at baseline, we found a similar association between liver fibrosis and CVEs,” the researchers wrote, noting that the adjusted HRs for NFS were 2.50 and 4.28, respectively.
In addition to liver-related complications, patients with NAFLD are known to have an increased CVE risk, and while liver fibrosis severity is used to determine prognosis, not all patients can undergo a liver biopsy to assess fibrosis. Therefore, there is a need to identify and validate noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis, but few data exist with respect to the predictive role of noninvasive scoring on CVEs, they said.
The findings of this study suggest the use of the NFS and FIB-4 score may reduce the need for liver biopsy by identifying NAFLD patients at higher risk of having advanced liver fibrosis. They further suggest that liver fibrosis development in patients with NAFLD “may be the result of a long-term exposure to cardiometabolic risk factors such as diabetes,” and that “the concomitant presence of multiple cardiometabolic conditions may induce a chronic low-grade proinflammatory and pro-oxidant status leading to liver inflammation (i.e., macrophage activation) and collagen deposition.”
The findings may also have clinical implications: “The association between liver fibrosis and cardiovascular risk supports a potential role for statin treatment in patients with NAFLD,” they explained.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Baratta F et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.026.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Framingham: Exercise lessens cardiometabolic risk of poor diet
PHILADELPHIA – Engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week as recommended in national guidelines appears to mitigate the cardiometabolic risks associated with poor diet quality in middle-aged and older adults, according to an analysis of Framingham Heart Study data.
“Our findings suggest adherence to physical activity guidelines may have a protective effect on cardiometabolic health regardless of diet quality,” Joowon Lee, PhD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented separate cross-sectional analyses of the risks of metabolic syndrome in 2,379 middle-aged participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored Framingham (Mass.) Third Generation Study and 1,180 older participants in the Framingham Offspring Study.
The two analyses showed the same thing across a broad age spectrum: The highest prevalence of metabolic syndrome as defined by Adult Treatment Panel III criteria was present among those individuals who got less than 150 minutes of physical activity per week and were also in the lowest tertile in terms of diet quality, while the lowest prevalence of metabolic syndrome occurred in participants in the top tertile for diet quality who engaged in at least 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity in accord with the Department of Health & Human Services 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
In both the middle-aged and older populations, optimal physical activity – that is, at least 150 minutes per week – appeared to override the adverse impact of suboptimal diet quality. Physically active individuals with moderate or even poor diet quality had a significantly lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome than did the reference group constituted by participants with poor diet quality who didn’t exercise for 150 minutes per week.
But the converse didn’t hold true: Individuals with optimal diet quality who didn’t reach the physical activity threshold had no reduction in metabolic syndrome, compared with the reference group, according to Dr. Lee of Boston University.
For example, among the Framingham Offspring Study participants, whose mean age was 69 years at the time of their ninth formal examination in 2014, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 59% in those who got less than 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity weekly as assessed by accelerometer and who were also in the lowest tertile for diet quality as self-reported on the DGAI-2010 (Dietary Guidelines Adherence Index) semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. The relative risk of metabolic syndrome was reduced by 61% in participants with both optimal physical activity and diet quality, by 49% in those with at least 150 minutes of physical activity but only moderate diet quality, and by 39% in those with optimal exercise and poor diet quality. In contrast, individuals in the top or middle tertiles for diet quality who didn’t meet the physical activity standard had a metabolic syndrome rate that wasn’t significantly lower than the reference group.
Dr. Lee observed that his analyses are best viewed as hypothesis generating. Their cross-sectional format precludes firm conclusions as to causality.
His findings prompted session comoderator Satyam Sarma, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, to make one of the most memorable comments heard at AHA 2019: that the Framingham findings suggest it may be possible to outrun a bad diet.
Dr. Lee reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, supported by Boston University.
SOURCE: Lee J. AHA 2019, Abstract RF244.
PHILADELPHIA – Engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week as recommended in national guidelines appears to mitigate the cardiometabolic risks associated with poor diet quality in middle-aged and older adults, according to an analysis of Framingham Heart Study data.
“Our findings suggest adherence to physical activity guidelines may have a protective effect on cardiometabolic health regardless of diet quality,” Joowon Lee, PhD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented separate cross-sectional analyses of the risks of metabolic syndrome in 2,379 middle-aged participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored Framingham (Mass.) Third Generation Study and 1,180 older participants in the Framingham Offspring Study.
The two analyses showed the same thing across a broad age spectrum: The highest prevalence of metabolic syndrome as defined by Adult Treatment Panel III criteria was present among those individuals who got less than 150 minutes of physical activity per week and were also in the lowest tertile in terms of diet quality, while the lowest prevalence of metabolic syndrome occurred in participants in the top tertile for diet quality who engaged in at least 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity in accord with the Department of Health & Human Services 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
In both the middle-aged and older populations, optimal physical activity – that is, at least 150 minutes per week – appeared to override the adverse impact of suboptimal diet quality. Physically active individuals with moderate or even poor diet quality had a significantly lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome than did the reference group constituted by participants with poor diet quality who didn’t exercise for 150 minutes per week.
But the converse didn’t hold true: Individuals with optimal diet quality who didn’t reach the physical activity threshold had no reduction in metabolic syndrome, compared with the reference group, according to Dr. Lee of Boston University.
For example, among the Framingham Offspring Study participants, whose mean age was 69 years at the time of their ninth formal examination in 2014, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 59% in those who got less than 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity weekly as assessed by accelerometer and who were also in the lowest tertile for diet quality as self-reported on the DGAI-2010 (Dietary Guidelines Adherence Index) semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. The relative risk of metabolic syndrome was reduced by 61% in participants with both optimal physical activity and diet quality, by 49% in those with at least 150 minutes of physical activity but only moderate diet quality, and by 39% in those with optimal exercise and poor diet quality. In contrast, individuals in the top or middle tertiles for diet quality who didn’t meet the physical activity standard had a metabolic syndrome rate that wasn’t significantly lower than the reference group.
Dr. Lee observed that his analyses are best viewed as hypothesis generating. Their cross-sectional format precludes firm conclusions as to causality.
His findings prompted session comoderator Satyam Sarma, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, to make one of the most memorable comments heard at AHA 2019: that the Framingham findings suggest it may be possible to outrun a bad diet.
Dr. Lee reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, supported by Boston University.
SOURCE: Lee J. AHA 2019, Abstract RF244.
PHILADELPHIA – Engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week as recommended in national guidelines appears to mitigate the cardiometabolic risks associated with poor diet quality in middle-aged and older adults, according to an analysis of Framingham Heart Study data.
“Our findings suggest adherence to physical activity guidelines may have a protective effect on cardiometabolic health regardless of diet quality,” Joowon Lee, PhD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented separate cross-sectional analyses of the risks of metabolic syndrome in 2,379 middle-aged participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored Framingham (Mass.) Third Generation Study and 1,180 older participants in the Framingham Offspring Study.
The two analyses showed the same thing across a broad age spectrum: The highest prevalence of metabolic syndrome as defined by Adult Treatment Panel III criteria was present among those individuals who got less than 150 minutes of physical activity per week and were also in the lowest tertile in terms of diet quality, while the lowest prevalence of metabolic syndrome occurred in participants in the top tertile for diet quality who engaged in at least 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity in accord with the Department of Health & Human Services 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
In both the middle-aged and older populations, optimal physical activity – that is, at least 150 minutes per week – appeared to override the adverse impact of suboptimal diet quality. Physically active individuals with moderate or even poor diet quality had a significantly lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome than did the reference group constituted by participants with poor diet quality who didn’t exercise for 150 minutes per week.
But the converse didn’t hold true: Individuals with optimal diet quality who didn’t reach the physical activity threshold had no reduction in metabolic syndrome, compared with the reference group, according to Dr. Lee of Boston University.
For example, among the Framingham Offspring Study participants, whose mean age was 69 years at the time of their ninth formal examination in 2014, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 59% in those who got less than 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity weekly as assessed by accelerometer and who were also in the lowest tertile for diet quality as self-reported on the DGAI-2010 (Dietary Guidelines Adherence Index) semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. The relative risk of metabolic syndrome was reduced by 61% in participants with both optimal physical activity and diet quality, by 49% in those with at least 150 minutes of physical activity but only moderate diet quality, and by 39% in those with optimal exercise and poor diet quality. In contrast, individuals in the top or middle tertiles for diet quality who didn’t meet the physical activity standard had a metabolic syndrome rate that wasn’t significantly lower than the reference group.
Dr. Lee observed that his analyses are best viewed as hypothesis generating. Their cross-sectional format precludes firm conclusions as to causality.
His findings prompted session comoderator Satyam Sarma, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, to make one of the most memorable comments heard at AHA 2019: that the Framingham findings suggest it may be possible to outrun a bad diet.
Dr. Lee reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, supported by Boston University.
SOURCE: Lee J. AHA 2019, Abstract RF244.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Testosterone gel increases LV mass in older men
PHILADELPHIA – Testosterone gel for treatment of hypogonadism in older men boosted their left ventricular mass by 3.5% in a single year in the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled Testosterone Cardiovascular Trial, although the clinical implications of this impressive increase remain unclear, Elizabeth Hutchins, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“I do think these results should be considered as part of the safety profile for testosterone gel and also represent an interesting and understudied area for future research,” said Dr. Hutchins, a hospitalist affiliated with the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.
The Testosterone Cardiovascular Trial was one of seven coordinated placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials of the impact of raising serum testosterone levels in older men with low testosterone. Some results of what are known as the TTrials have previously been reported (Endocr Rev. 2018 Jun 1;39[3]:369-86).
Dr. Hutchins presented new findings on the effect of treatment with 1% topical testosterone gel on body surface area–indexed left ventricular mass. The trial utilized a widely prescribed, commercially available product known as AndroGel. The study included 123 men over age 65 with low serum testosterone and coronary CT angiography images obtained at baseline and again after 1 year of double-blind testosterone gel or placebo. More than 80% of the men were above age 75, half were obese, more than two-thirds had hypertension, and 30% had diabetes.
The men initially applied 5 g of the testosterone gel daily, providing 15 mg/day of testosterone, with subsequent dosing adjustments as needed based on serum testosterone levels measured at a central laboratory. Participants were evaluated in office visits with serum testosterone measurements every 3 months. Testosterone levels in the men assigned to active treatment quickly rose to normal range and stayed there for the full 12 months, while the placebo-treated controls continued to have below-normal testosterone throughout the trial.
The key study finding was that LV mass indexed to body surface area rose significantly in the testosterone gel group, from an average of 71.5 g/m2 at baseline to 74.8 g/m2 at 1 year. That’s a statistically significant 3.5% increase. In contrast, LV mass remained flat across the year in controls: 73.8 g/m2 at baseline and 73.3 g/m2 at 12 months.
There was, however, no change over time in left or right atrial or ventricular chamber volumes in the testosterone gel recipients, nor in the controls.
Session comoderator Eric D. Peterson, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said that “this is a very important topic,” then posed a provocative question to Dr. Hutchins: “If the intervention had been running instead of testosterone gel, would the results have looked similar, and would you be concluding that there should be a warning around the use of running?”
Dr. Hutchins replied that she’s given that question much thought.
“Of course, exercise leads to LV hypertrophy and we consider that to be good muscle, and high blood pressure leads to LV hypertrophy and we consider that bad muscle. So which one is it in this case? From what I can find in the literature, it seems that incremental increases in LV mass in the absence of being an athlete are deleterious. But I think we would need outcomes-based research to really answer that question,” she said.
Dr. Hutchins noted that this was the first-ever randomized controlled trial to measure the effect of testosterone therapy on LV mass in humans. The documented increase achieved with 1 year of testosterone gel doesn’t come close to reaching the threshold of LV hypertrophy, which is about 125 g/m2 for men. But evidence from animal and observational human studies suggests that even in the absence of LV hypertrophy, increases in LV mass are associated with increased mortality, she added.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Hutchins E. AHA 2019, Session FS.AOS.04.
PHILADELPHIA – Testosterone gel for treatment of hypogonadism in older men boosted their left ventricular mass by 3.5% in a single year in the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled Testosterone Cardiovascular Trial, although the clinical implications of this impressive increase remain unclear, Elizabeth Hutchins, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“I do think these results should be considered as part of the safety profile for testosterone gel and also represent an interesting and understudied area for future research,” said Dr. Hutchins, a hospitalist affiliated with the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.
The Testosterone Cardiovascular Trial was one of seven coordinated placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials of the impact of raising serum testosterone levels in older men with low testosterone. Some results of what are known as the TTrials have previously been reported (Endocr Rev. 2018 Jun 1;39[3]:369-86).
Dr. Hutchins presented new findings on the effect of treatment with 1% topical testosterone gel on body surface area–indexed left ventricular mass. The trial utilized a widely prescribed, commercially available product known as AndroGel. The study included 123 men over age 65 with low serum testosterone and coronary CT angiography images obtained at baseline and again after 1 year of double-blind testosterone gel or placebo. More than 80% of the men were above age 75, half were obese, more than two-thirds had hypertension, and 30% had diabetes.
The men initially applied 5 g of the testosterone gel daily, providing 15 mg/day of testosterone, with subsequent dosing adjustments as needed based on serum testosterone levels measured at a central laboratory. Participants were evaluated in office visits with serum testosterone measurements every 3 months. Testosterone levels in the men assigned to active treatment quickly rose to normal range and stayed there for the full 12 months, while the placebo-treated controls continued to have below-normal testosterone throughout the trial.
The key study finding was that LV mass indexed to body surface area rose significantly in the testosterone gel group, from an average of 71.5 g/m2 at baseline to 74.8 g/m2 at 1 year. That’s a statistically significant 3.5% increase. In contrast, LV mass remained flat across the year in controls: 73.8 g/m2 at baseline and 73.3 g/m2 at 12 months.
There was, however, no change over time in left or right atrial or ventricular chamber volumes in the testosterone gel recipients, nor in the controls.
Session comoderator Eric D. Peterson, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said that “this is a very important topic,” then posed a provocative question to Dr. Hutchins: “If the intervention had been running instead of testosterone gel, would the results have looked similar, and would you be concluding that there should be a warning around the use of running?”
Dr. Hutchins replied that she’s given that question much thought.
“Of course, exercise leads to LV hypertrophy and we consider that to be good muscle, and high blood pressure leads to LV hypertrophy and we consider that bad muscle. So which one is it in this case? From what I can find in the literature, it seems that incremental increases in LV mass in the absence of being an athlete are deleterious. But I think we would need outcomes-based research to really answer that question,” she said.
Dr. Hutchins noted that this was the first-ever randomized controlled trial to measure the effect of testosterone therapy on LV mass in humans. The documented increase achieved with 1 year of testosterone gel doesn’t come close to reaching the threshold of LV hypertrophy, which is about 125 g/m2 for men. But evidence from animal and observational human studies suggests that even in the absence of LV hypertrophy, increases in LV mass are associated with increased mortality, she added.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Hutchins E. AHA 2019, Session FS.AOS.04.
PHILADELPHIA – Testosterone gel for treatment of hypogonadism in older men boosted their left ventricular mass by 3.5% in a single year in the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled Testosterone Cardiovascular Trial, although the clinical implications of this impressive increase remain unclear, Elizabeth Hutchins, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“I do think these results should be considered as part of the safety profile for testosterone gel and also represent an interesting and understudied area for future research,” said Dr. Hutchins, a hospitalist affiliated with the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.
The Testosterone Cardiovascular Trial was one of seven coordinated placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials of the impact of raising serum testosterone levels in older men with low testosterone. Some results of what are known as the TTrials have previously been reported (Endocr Rev. 2018 Jun 1;39[3]:369-86).
Dr. Hutchins presented new findings on the effect of treatment with 1% topical testosterone gel on body surface area–indexed left ventricular mass. The trial utilized a widely prescribed, commercially available product known as AndroGel. The study included 123 men over age 65 with low serum testosterone and coronary CT angiography images obtained at baseline and again after 1 year of double-blind testosterone gel or placebo. More than 80% of the men were above age 75, half were obese, more than two-thirds had hypertension, and 30% had diabetes.
The men initially applied 5 g of the testosterone gel daily, providing 15 mg/day of testosterone, with subsequent dosing adjustments as needed based on serum testosterone levels measured at a central laboratory. Participants were evaluated in office visits with serum testosterone measurements every 3 months. Testosterone levels in the men assigned to active treatment quickly rose to normal range and stayed there for the full 12 months, while the placebo-treated controls continued to have below-normal testosterone throughout the trial.
The key study finding was that LV mass indexed to body surface area rose significantly in the testosterone gel group, from an average of 71.5 g/m2 at baseline to 74.8 g/m2 at 1 year. That’s a statistically significant 3.5% increase. In contrast, LV mass remained flat across the year in controls: 73.8 g/m2 at baseline and 73.3 g/m2 at 12 months.
There was, however, no change over time in left or right atrial or ventricular chamber volumes in the testosterone gel recipients, nor in the controls.
Session comoderator Eric D. Peterson, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said that “this is a very important topic,” then posed a provocative question to Dr. Hutchins: “If the intervention had been running instead of testosterone gel, would the results have looked similar, and would you be concluding that there should be a warning around the use of running?”
Dr. Hutchins replied that she’s given that question much thought.
“Of course, exercise leads to LV hypertrophy and we consider that to be good muscle, and high blood pressure leads to LV hypertrophy and we consider that bad muscle. So which one is it in this case? From what I can find in the literature, it seems that incremental increases in LV mass in the absence of being an athlete are deleterious. But I think we would need outcomes-based research to really answer that question,” she said.
Dr. Hutchins noted that this was the first-ever randomized controlled trial to measure the effect of testosterone therapy on LV mass in humans. The documented increase achieved with 1 year of testosterone gel doesn’t come close to reaching the threshold of LV hypertrophy, which is about 125 g/m2 for men. But evidence from animal and observational human studies suggests that even in the absence of LV hypertrophy, increases in LV mass are associated with increased mortality, she added.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Hutchins E. AHA 2019, Session FS.AOS.04.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Coronary function testing during angiography boosts 1-year angina outcomes
PHILADELPHIA – Longer and more extensive follow-up of the positive CorMicA trial confirmed that clinicians who receive added information on the presence or absence of microvascular coronary disease or coronary vasospasm in patients with chronic, stable angina but without detectable coronary obstruction adjust patient treatment in ways that produce better outcomes.
For example, expanded 1-year follow-up of the 151-patient, multicenter, CorMicA randomized study showed that stable angina patients without coronary obstruction treated by clinicians aware of microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease had blood pressures that averaged about 12/5 mm Hg lower than those of patients in the control arm, in which this information was kept blinded.
Clinicians in the study who received information about diagnoses of microvascular angina, vasospastic angina, both, or neither, generally better tailored the treatments they gave these patients, were more likely to prescribe cardiac rehabilitation to these patients, and successfully capped increases in blood pressure that occurred in the control patients, Colin Berry, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The investigators made the diagnoses of microvascular and vasospastic angina using an “invasive diagnostic procedure” that involved placing a wire with pressure and temperature sensors in a selected coronary artery and measuring flow patterns that resulted from a systemic infusion of adenosine and from incremental, intracoronary infusions of acetylcholine.
The CorMicA results “tell us that, if we use existing drugs and nonpharmacologic treatments, we can improve patients’ quality of life,” said Dr. Berry, co-lead investigator of the study and professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow. “There were probably two drivers of change in treatment” between the intervention arm where clinicians learned whether their patients had microvascular angina or vasospasm, and the control arm where this information was kept blinded. Some patients reclassified as having microvascular disease or vasospasm were restarted on standard agents for treatment of coronary artery disease such as statins and ACE inhibitors that had previously been stopped, noted Dr. Berry. The identification of a specific type of vascular disorder also helped guide treatment. For example, patients identified as having vasospasm were taken off of beta-blockers, which are contraindicated in these patients, and instead began treatment with a calcium channel antagonist, he said.
“CorMicA was a landmark trial. The interventional cardiologists at my center believe that the testing [for microvascular and vasospastic angina] should be used routinely, based on the reported data,” said Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, a cardiologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The CorMicA (Coronary Microvascular Angina) trial enrolled 391 patients at either of two hospitals in Scotland during November 2016–November 2017. All patients were scheduled for clinically indicated, elective diagnostic angiography for suspected stable angina. Clinicians identified a coronary obstruction in 206 patients that excluded them from the main CorMicA analysis. They focused on the 181 without coronary obstruction visible by angiography, and specifically the 151 of these patients who underwent the invasive diagnostic procedure, with 76 randomized to have their diagnostic-procedure results relayed to their treating physicians and 75 patients whose diagnostic results remained blinded. The study’s primary endpoint was the mean difference in angina severity at 6 months after treatment assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. After 6 months, the between-group difference in average SAQ summary scores was 11.7 units, a statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful benefit that linked with knowledge of the coronary function of patients based on invasive testing (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 11;72[23 Part A]:2841-55).
The prespecified 1-year follow-up with another SAQ took place for 142 of the 151 randomized patients, and showed ongoing separation of SAQ scores between the intervention and control patients, reaching a statistically significant mean difference of 13.6 units, Dr. Berry reported. Other benefits that linked with dissemination of results from the invasive diagnostic procedure included maintenance of the quality-of-life benefit seen after 6 months, an incremental further reduction in illness perception from 6 to 12 months, and a substantial further improvement in global treatment satisfaction, which grew from a 30% higher level in the intervention group compared with controls at 6 months to a 44% between-group difference after 12 months. Concurrently with Dr. Berry’s report, the results appeared online (JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jan 13;13[1] 33-45).
Additional findings for various clinical measures that were not part of the 6-month findings provided further insight into the impact that clinician knowledge about microvascular disease or vasospasm had on patients. These metrics suggested that the benefits in the intervention patients may have largely resulted from their avoiding elevations in risk markers that occurred among controls who received routine care.
For example, after 12 months, average 12/5 mm Hg differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the two arms was nearly all because of pressure increases from baseline in the control patients with only very small drops in pressure from baseline among the intervention patients. Weight measurements after 1 year showed that the control patients were on average 1.3 kg heavier than the intervention patients, again mostly because of weight increases among the controls. Enrollment in a cardiac rehabilitation program at 12 months had occurred for 40% of the intervention patients and 16% of the controls, a 73% relative increase in the intervention arm, Dr. Berry reported.
The invasive, coronary, physiological assessments used in CorMicA led to stratified medical therapy and created an opportunity for better long-term angina treatment in patients without obstructive coronary disease, Dr. Berry concluded. He stressed the need to further test this hypothesis in larger, prospective studies, and to assess its cost effectiveness. But the proof-of-concept demonstrated by the CorMicA results indicate a role for more thorough investigation of coronary dysfunction when obstructive disease is absent, with the opportunity to use this information to better tailor treatment. The findings also highlight the potential for new drug development that can address nonobstructive microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease, he said.
Dr. Berry has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Novartis, and Siemens Healthcare. Dr. Reynolds had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ford TJ. AHA 2019, session FS.AOS.03 abstract.
PHILADELPHIA – Longer and more extensive follow-up of the positive CorMicA trial confirmed that clinicians who receive added information on the presence or absence of microvascular coronary disease or coronary vasospasm in patients with chronic, stable angina but without detectable coronary obstruction adjust patient treatment in ways that produce better outcomes.
For example, expanded 1-year follow-up of the 151-patient, multicenter, CorMicA randomized study showed that stable angina patients without coronary obstruction treated by clinicians aware of microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease had blood pressures that averaged about 12/5 mm Hg lower than those of patients in the control arm, in which this information was kept blinded.
Clinicians in the study who received information about diagnoses of microvascular angina, vasospastic angina, both, or neither, generally better tailored the treatments they gave these patients, were more likely to prescribe cardiac rehabilitation to these patients, and successfully capped increases in blood pressure that occurred in the control patients, Colin Berry, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The investigators made the diagnoses of microvascular and vasospastic angina using an “invasive diagnostic procedure” that involved placing a wire with pressure and temperature sensors in a selected coronary artery and measuring flow patterns that resulted from a systemic infusion of adenosine and from incremental, intracoronary infusions of acetylcholine.
The CorMicA results “tell us that, if we use existing drugs and nonpharmacologic treatments, we can improve patients’ quality of life,” said Dr. Berry, co-lead investigator of the study and professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow. “There were probably two drivers of change in treatment” between the intervention arm where clinicians learned whether their patients had microvascular angina or vasospasm, and the control arm where this information was kept blinded. Some patients reclassified as having microvascular disease or vasospasm were restarted on standard agents for treatment of coronary artery disease such as statins and ACE inhibitors that had previously been stopped, noted Dr. Berry. The identification of a specific type of vascular disorder also helped guide treatment. For example, patients identified as having vasospasm were taken off of beta-blockers, which are contraindicated in these patients, and instead began treatment with a calcium channel antagonist, he said.
“CorMicA was a landmark trial. The interventional cardiologists at my center believe that the testing [for microvascular and vasospastic angina] should be used routinely, based on the reported data,” said Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, a cardiologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The CorMicA (Coronary Microvascular Angina) trial enrolled 391 patients at either of two hospitals in Scotland during November 2016–November 2017. All patients were scheduled for clinically indicated, elective diagnostic angiography for suspected stable angina. Clinicians identified a coronary obstruction in 206 patients that excluded them from the main CorMicA analysis. They focused on the 181 without coronary obstruction visible by angiography, and specifically the 151 of these patients who underwent the invasive diagnostic procedure, with 76 randomized to have their diagnostic-procedure results relayed to their treating physicians and 75 patients whose diagnostic results remained blinded. The study’s primary endpoint was the mean difference in angina severity at 6 months after treatment assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. After 6 months, the between-group difference in average SAQ summary scores was 11.7 units, a statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful benefit that linked with knowledge of the coronary function of patients based on invasive testing (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 11;72[23 Part A]:2841-55).
The prespecified 1-year follow-up with another SAQ took place for 142 of the 151 randomized patients, and showed ongoing separation of SAQ scores between the intervention and control patients, reaching a statistically significant mean difference of 13.6 units, Dr. Berry reported. Other benefits that linked with dissemination of results from the invasive diagnostic procedure included maintenance of the quality-of-life benefit seen after 6 months, an incremental further reduction in illness perception from 6 to 12 months, and a substantial further improvement in global treatment satisfaction, which grew from a 30% higher level in the intervention group compared with controls at 6 months to a 44% between-group difference after 12 months. Concurrently with Dr. Berry’s report, the results appeared online (JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jan 13;13[1] 33-45).
Additional findings for various clinical measures that were not part of the 6-month findings provided further insight into the impact that clinician knowledge about microvascular disease or vasospasm had on patients. These metrics suggested that the benefits in the intervention patients may have largely resulted from their avoiding elevations in risk markers that occurred among controls who received routine care.
For example, after 12 months, average 12/5 mm Hg differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the two arms was nearly all because of pressure increases from baseline in the control patients with only very small drops in pressure from baseline among the intervention patients. Weight measurements after 1 year showed that the control patients were on average 1.3 kg heavier than the intervention patients, again mostly because of weight increases among the controls. Enrollment in a cardiac rehabilitation program at 12 months had occurred for 40% of the intervention patients and 16% of the controls, a 73% relative increase in the intervention arm, Dr. Berry reported.
The invasive, coronary, physiological assessments used in CorMicA led to stratified medical therapy and created an opportunity for better long-term angina treatment in patients without obstructive coronary disease, Dr. Berry concluded. He stressed the need to further test this hypothesis in larger, prospective studies, and to assess its cost effectiveness. But the proof-of-concept demonstrated by the CorMicA results indicate a role for more thorough investigation of coronary dysfunction when obstructive disease is absent, with the opportunity to use this information to better tailor treatment. The findings also highlight the potential for new drug development that can address nonobstructive microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease, he said.
Dr. Berry has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Novartis, and Siemens Healthcare. Dr. Reynolds had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ford TJ. AHA 2019, session FS.AOS.03 abstract.
PHILADELPHIA – Longer and more extensive follow-up of the positive CorMicA trial confirmed that clinicians who receive added information on the presence or absence of microvascular coronary disease or coronary vasospasm in patients with chronic, stable angina but without detectable coronary obstruction adjust patient treatment in ways that produce better outcomes.
For example, expanded 1-year follow-up of the 151-patient, multicenter, CorMicA randomized study showed that stable angina patients without coronary obstruction treated by clinicians aware of microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease had blood pressures that averaged about 12/5 mm Hg lower than those of patients in the control arm, in which this information was kept blinded.
Clinicians in the study who received information about diagnoses of microvascular angina, vasospastic angina, both, or neither, generally better tailored the treatments they gave these patients, were more likely to prescribe cardiac rehabilitation to these patients, and successfully capped increases in blood pressure that occurred in the control patients, Colin Berry, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The investigators made the diagnoses of microvascular and vasospastic angina using an “invasive diagnostic procedure” that involved placing a wire with pressure and temperature sensors in a selected coronary artery and measuring flow patterns that resulted from a systemic infusion of adenosine and from incremental, intracoronary infusions of acetylcholine.
The CorMicA results “tell us that, if we use existing drugs and nonpharmacologic treatments, we can improve patients’ quality of life,” said Dr. Berry, co-lead investigator of the study and professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow. “There were probably two drivers of change in treatment” between the intervention arm where clinicians learned whether their patients had microvascular angina or vasospasm, and the control arm where this information was kept blinded. Some patients reclassified as having microvascular disease or vasospasm were restarted on standard agents for treatment of coronary artery disease such as statins and ACE inhibitors that had previously been stopped, noted Dr. Berry. The identification of a specific type of vascular disorder also helped guide treatment. For example, patients identified as having vasospasm were taken off of beta-blockers, which are contraindicated in these patients, and instead began treatment with a calcium channel antagonist, he said.
“CorMicA was a landmark trial. The interventional cardiologists at my center believe that the testing [for microvascular and vasospastic angina] should be used routinely, based on the reported data,” said Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, a cardiologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The CorMicA (Coronary Microvascular Angina) trial enrolled 391 patients at either of two hospitals in Scotland during November 2016–November 2017. All patients were scheduled for clinically indicated, elective diagnostic angiography for suspected stable angina. Clinicians identified a coronary obstruction in 206 patients that excluded them from the main CorMicA analysis. They focused on the 181 without coronary obstruction visible by angiography, and specifically the 151 of these patients who underwent the invasive diagnostic procedure, with 76 randomized to have their diagnostic-procedure results relayed to their treating physicians and 75 patients whose diagnostic results remained blinded. The study’s primary endpoint was the mean difference in angina severity at 6 months after treatment assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. After 6 months, the between-group difference in average SAQ summary scores was 11.7 units, a statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful benefit that linked with knowledge of the coronary function of patients based on invasive testing (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 11;72[23 Part A]:2841-55).
The prespecified 1-year follow-up with another SAQ took place for 142 of the 151 randomized patients, and showed ongoing separation of SAQ scores between the intervention and control patients, reaching a statistically significant mean difference of 13.6 units, Dr. Berry reported. Other benefits that linked with dissemination of results from the invasive diagnostic procedure included maintenance of the quality-of-life benefit seen after 6 months, an incremental further reduction in illness perception from 6 to 12 months, and a substantial further improvement in global treatment satisfaction, which grew from a 30% higher level in the intervention group compared with controls at 6 months to a 44% between-group difference after 12 months. Concurrently with Dr. Berry’s report, the results appeared online (JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jan 13;13[1] 33-45).
Additional findings for various clinical measures that were not part of the 6-month findings provided further insight into the impact that clinician knowledge about microvascular disease or vasospasm had on patients. These metrics suggested that the benefits in the intervention patients may have largely resulted from their avoiding elevations in risk markers that occurred among controls who received routine care.
For example, after 12 months, average 12/5 mm Hg differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the two arms was nearly all because of pressure increases from baseline in the control patients with only very small drops in pressure from baseline among the intervention patients. Weight measurements after 1 year showed that the control patients were on average 1.3 kg heavier than the intervention patients, again mostly because of weight increases among the controls. Enrollment in a cardiac rehabilitation program at 12 months had occurred for 40% of the intervention patients and 16% of the controls, a 73% relative increase in the intervention arm, Dr. Berry reported.
The invasive, coronary, physiological assessments used in CorMicA led to stratified medical therapy and created an opportunity for better long-term angina treatment in patients without obstructive coronary disease, Dr. Berry concluded. He stressed the need to further test this hypothesis in larger, prospective studies, and to assess its cost effectiveness. But the proof-of-concept demonstrated by the CorMicA results indicate a role for more thorough investigation of coronary dysfunction when obstructive disease is absent, with the opportunity to use this information to better tailor treatment. The findings also highlight the potential for new drug development that can address nonobstructive microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease, he said.
Dr. Berry has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Novartis, and Siemens Healthcare. Dr. Reynolds had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ford TJ. AHA 2019, session FS.AOS.03 abstract.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
SPRINT-type BP control provides up to 3 years of additional life
PHILADELPHIA – in age-dependent fashion, compared with the older target standard BP, according to a novel analysis of data from the landmark SPRINT trial.
SPRINT randomized 9,361 hypertensive patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to intensive control with a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg or to the then-standard target of less than 140 mm Hg. The trial was stopped early for ethical reasons when an interim analysis showed intensive control was associated with a 27% reduction in mortality. But that 27% reduction in mortality risk is a tough concept for many patients to interpret in practical terms, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So he and his coinvestigators sliced and diced the mountainous SPRINT data in a novel way, using an actuarial statistical analysis.
“These actuarial data from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive blood pressure control, especially when initiated in middle-aged, high-risk adults. Our analysis really reaffirms the original SPRINT trial results [N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16] and helps present them in an alternative format that can potentially be more easily communicated to clinicians, patients, and the public at large,” explained Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The impact of intensive BP control on residual survival was magnified in patients who were younger, since they intrinsically have a longer expected survival and will apply the antihypertensive regimen over a longer period. For example, the actuarial analysis concluded that the mean survival benefit of starting intensive BP lowering, rather than settling for a target systolic BP of less than 140 mm Hg starting at age 50 years, was 3 additional years of life, as compared with 1.1 additional years in 65-year-olds and 0.5 years in patients aged 85 years or older. The same approach can be applied to patients at any individual age from 50 to 95 years at the time of enrollment.
“This is very helpful in conveying messages to individual patients. Often if you tell a patient: ‘Your risk is going to go down by 27%,’ it’s tough for them to recognize what the baseline is and if that actually applied to them. So this may personalize that decision-making conversation,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member commented that this SPRINT analysis might actually underestimate the true survival advantage of intensive BP lowering. He noted that SPRINT, which was halted after an average of 3.3 years, didn’t show a significant benefit for intensive BP lowering in terms of stroke reduction, whereas the ACCORD trial did, but that benefit didn’t occur until after 3 years into the study (Hypertension. 2018 Aug;72[2]:323-30).
Dr. Vaduganathan conceded that’s a limitation of his analysis.
“The assumption we’ve used is that long-term cardiovascular benefits are going to be as seen in the trial, but since SPRINT was stopped early, some benefits may be exaggerated and some may not have been observed yet,” he agreed.
Another audience member observed, “I think a lot of patients will think: ‘Okay, you’re tacking on a year at the end, when I’m going to be 89 and demented.’ The National Institute on Aging is focusing a lot more now on nondisabled life expectancy or healthy life expectancy.’”
Dr. Vaduganathan offered a degree of reassurance on this score. Because of time limitations, he said, he only presented the life expectancy results. But he and his coworkers have performed the same actuarial analysis of the SPRINT data for other endpoints related to freedom from various forms of disease or disability and found a consistent effect: Intensive BP control was associated with a longer time to onset of morbidity.
SPRINT was sponsored primarily by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Vaduganathan reported that he receives research support from/and or serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa.
SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. AHA 2019, Abstract MDP233.
PHILADELPHIA – in age-dependent fashion, compared with the older target standard BP, according to a novel analysis of data from the landmark SPRINT trial.
SPRINT randomized 9,361 hypertensive patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to intensive control with a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg or to the then-standard target of less than 140 mm Hg. The trial was stopped early for ethical reasons when an interim analysis showed intensive control was associated with a 27% reduction in mortality. But that 27% reduction in mortality risk is a tough concept for many patients to interpret in practical terms, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So he and his coinvestigators sliced and diced the mountainous SPRINT data in a novel way, using an actuarial statistical analysis.
“These actuarial data from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive blood pressure control, especially when initiated in middle-aged, high-risk adults. Our analysis really reaffirms the original SPRINT trial results [N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16] and helps present them in an alternative format that can potentially be more easily communicated to clinicians, patients, and the public at large,” explained Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The impact of intensive BP control on residual survival was magnified in patients who were younger, since they intrinsically have a longer expected survival and will apply the antihypertensive regimen over a longer period. For example, the actuarial analysis concluded that the mean survival benefit of starting intensive BP lowering, rather than settling for a target systolic BP of less than 140 mm Hg starting at age 50 years, was 3 additional years of life, as compared with 1.1 additional years in 65-year-olds and 0.5 years in patients aged 85 years or older. The same approach can be applied to patients at any individual age from 50 to 95 years at the time of enrollment.
“This is very helpful in conveying messages to individual patients. Often if you tell a patient: ‘Your risk is going to go down by 27%,’ it’s tough for them to recognize what the baseline is and if that actually applied to them. So this may personalize that decision-making conversation,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member commented that this SPRINT analysis might actually underestimate the true survival advantage of intensive BP lowering. He noted that SPRINT, which was halted after an average of 3.3 years, didn’t show a significant benefit for intensive BP lowering in terms of stroke reduction, whereas the ACCORD trial did, but that benefit didn’t occur until after 3 years into the study (Hypertension. 2018 Aug;72[2]:323-30).
Dr. Vaduganathan conceded that’s a limitation of his analysis.
“The assumption we’ve used is that long-term cardiovascular benefits are going to be as seen in the trial, but since SPRINT was stopped early, some benefits may be exaggerated and some may not have been observed yet,” he agreed.
Another audience member observed, “I think a lot of patients will think: ‘Okay, you’re tacking on a year at the end, when I’m going to be 89 and demented.’ The National Institute on Aging is focusing a lot more now on nondisabled life expectancy or healthy life expectancy.’”
Dr. Vaduganathan offered a degree of reassurance on this score. Because of time limitations, he said, he only presented the life expectancy results. But he and his coworkers have performed the same actuarial analysis of the SPRINT data for other endpoints related to freedom from various forms of disease or disability and found a consistent effect: Intensive BP control was associated with a longer time to onset of morbidity.
SPRINT was sponsored primarily by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Vaduganathan reported that he receives research support from/and or serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa.
SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. AHA 2019, Abstract MDP233.
PHILADELPHIA – in age-dependent fashion, compared with the older target standard BP, according to a novel analysis of data from the landmark SPRINT trial.
SPRINT randomized 9,361 hypertensive patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to intensive control with a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg or to the then-standard target of less than 140 mm Hg. The trial was stopped early for ethical reasons when an interim analysis showed intensive control was associated with a 27% reduction in mortality. But that 27% reduction in mortality risk is a tough concept for many patients to interpret in practical terms, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So he and his coinvestigators sliced and diced the mountainous SPRINT data in a novel way, using an actuarial statistical analysis.
“These actuarial data from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive blood pressure control, especially when initiated in middle-aged, high-risk adults. Our analysis really reaffirms the original SPRINT trial results [N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16] and helps present them in an alternative format that can potentially be more easily communicated to clinicians, patients, and the public at large,” explained Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The impact of intensive BP control on residual survival was magnified in patients who were younger, since they intrinsically have a longer expected survival and will apply the antihypertensive regimen over a longer period. For example, the actuarial analysis concluded that the mean survival benefit of starting intensive BP lowering, rather than settling for a target systolic BP of less than 140 mm Hg starting at age 50 years, was 3 additional years of life, as compared with 1.1 additional years in 65-year-olds and 0.5 years in patients aged 85 years or older. The same approach can be applied to patients at any individual age from 50 to 95 years at the time of enrollment.
“This is very helpful in conveying messages to individual patients. Often if you tell a patient: ‘Your risk is going to go down by 27%,’ it’s tough for them to recognize what the baseline is and if that actually applied to them. So this may personalize that decision-making conversation,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member commented that this SPRINT analysis might actually underestimate the true survival advantage of intensive BP lowering. He noted that SPRINT, which was halted after an average of 3.3 years, didn’t show a significant benefit for intensive BP lowering in terms of stroke reduction, whereas the ACCORD trial did, but that benefit didn’t occur until after 3 years into the study (Hypertension. 2018 Aug;72[2]:323-30).
Dr. Vaduganathan conceded that’s a limitation of his analysis.
“The assumption we’ve used is that long-term cardiovascular benefits are going to be as seen in the trial, but since SPRINT was stopped early, some benefits may be exaggerated and some may not have been observed yet,” he agreed.
Another audience member observed, “I think a lot of patients will think: ‘Okay, you’re tacking on a year at the end, when I’m going to be 89 and demented.’ The National Institute on Aging is focusing a lot more now on nondisabled life expectancy or healthy life expectancy.’”
Dr. Vaduganathan offered a degree of reassurance on this score. Because of time limitations, he said, he only presented the life expectancy results. But he and his coworkers have performed the same actuarial analysis of the SPRINT data for other endpoints related to freedom from various forms of disease or disability and found a consistent effect: Intensive BP control was associated with a longer time to onset of morbidity.
SPRINT was sponsored primarily by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Vaduganathan reported that he receives research support from/and or serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa.
SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. AHA 2019, Abstract MDP233.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
COACT: No benefit of immediate PCI for non–ST-elevation cardiac arrest at 1 year
PHILADELPHIA – Immediate coronary angiography following restoration of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-elevation MI (STEMI) offered no survival benefit at 1 year, compared with a strategy of delaying angiography until after neurologic recovery, in the landmark COACT trial, Jorrit Lemkes, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Nor was immediate coronary angiography advantageous in terms of any of the numerous secondary long-term endpoints, including rates of MI, revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks, or quality of life measures (see graphic), according to Dr. Lemkes, an interventional cardiologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.
COACT, a 552-patient randomized trial conducted at 19 Dutch centers, was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the role of immediate coronary angiography in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no signs of ST elevation on ECG. The study hypothesis was that this practice would result in improved survival and other outcomes. But such was not the case in the previously reported 90-day analysis (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 11;380[15]:1397-407). Nonetheless, the new 1-year results were eagerly awaited because observational data had suggested that immediate angiography after cardiac arrest without STEMI might provide a survival advantage that manifests late.
It now appears the observational studies were misleading. The 1-year survival rate was 61.4% in the immediate angioplasty group and similar at 64% with delayed angioplasty.
By way of background, Dr. Lemkes noted that both European and American guidelines give a class 1 recommendation to immediate coronary angiography with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who present with STEMI and cardiac arrest. It’s an endorsement grounded in compelling clinical trials evidence demonstrating that this practice reduces mortality and recurrent ischemia, salvages myocardium, and restores left ventricular function. In contrast, current guidelines offer only a tepid recommendation for immediate PCI in patients with cardiac arrest without STEMI because the only supporting evidence has been observational, with its inherent susceptibility to bias.
Discussant Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, said that the 1-year outcomes shouldn’t be surprising, since the 90-day results failed to show any between-group differences in myocardial injury or ischemia.
“At present, the results of COACT with regards to primary and secondary outcomes should guide practitioners that angiography remains essential, but that early angiography does not improve outcomes, compared to delayed angiography,” declared Dr. Cigarroa, chief of cardiology and professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
His choice of the words “at present” was key, as COACT won’t be the last word on the subject. Dr. Cigarroa believes that it’s critically important to understand the relatively narrow profile of the patients included in the study, because the results may or may not prove to be generalizable to the broader population of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients encountered in clinical practice. Nearly 80% of COACT participants had a witnessed arrest, the median time to basic life support was just 2 minutes, and the median time to return of spontaneous circulation was 15 minutes.
He urged his colleagues to stay tuned for reports from ongoing randomized trials examining the potential role of immediate angiography in broader populations of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without STEMI, including the Swedish DISCO (Direct or Subacute Coronary Angiography in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) trial and the smaller University of Minnesota–sponsored ACCESS trial.
Dr. Lemkes reported having no financial conflicts regarding the COACT trial, funded by the Netherlands Heart Institute and unrestricted research grants from Biotronik and AstraZeneca.
PHILADELPHIA – Immediate coronary angiography following restoration of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-elevation MI (STEMI) offered no survival benefit at 1 year, compared with a strategy of delaying angiography until after neurologic recovery, in the landmark COACT trial, Jorrit Lemkes, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Nor was immediate coronary angiography advantageous in terms of any of the numerous secondary long-term endpoints, including rates of MI, revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks, or quality of life measures (see graphic), according to Dr. Lemkes, an interventional cardiologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.
COACT, a 552-patient randomized trial conducted at 19 Dutch centers, was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the role of immediate coronary angiography in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no signs of ST elevation on ECG. The study hypothesis was that this practice would result in improved survival and other outcomes. But such was not the case in the previously reported 90-day analysis (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 11;380[15]:1397-407). Nonetheless, the new 1-year results were eagerly awaited because observational data had suggested that immediate angiography after cardiac arrest without STEMI might provide a survival advantage that manifests late.
It now appears the observational studies were misleading. The 1-year survival rate was 61.4% in the immediate angioplasty group and similar at 64% with delayed angioplasty.
By way of background, Dr. Lemkes noted that both European and American guidelines give a class 1 recommendation to immediate coronary angiography with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who present with STEMI and cardiac arrest. It’s an endorsement grounded in compelling clinical trials evidence demonstrating that this practice reduces mortality and recurrent ischemia, salvages myocardium, and restores left ventricular function. In contrast, current guidelines offer only a tepid recommendation for immediate PCI in patients with cardiac arrest without STEMI because the only supporting evidence has been observational, with its inherent susceptibility to bias.
Discussant Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, said that the 1-year outcomes shouldn’t be surprising, since the 90-day results failed to show any between-group differences in myocardial injury or ischemia.
“At present, the results of COACT with regards to primary and secondary outcomes should guide practitioners that angiography remains essential, but that early angiography does not improve outcomes, compared to delayed angiography,” declared Dr. Cigarroa, chief of cardiology and professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
His choice of the words “at present” was key, as COACT won’t be the last word on the subject. Dr. Cigarroa believes that it’s critically important to understand the relatively narrow profile of the patients included in the study, because the results may or may not prove to be generalizable to the broader population of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients encountered in clinical practice. Nearly 80% of COACT participants had a witnessed arrest, the median time to basic life support was just 2 minutes, and the median time to return of spontaneous circulation was 15 minutes.
He urged his colleagues to stay tuned for reports from ongoing randomized trials examining the potential role of immediate angiography in broader populations of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without STEMI, including the Swedish DISCO (Direct or Subacute Coronary Angiography in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) trial and the smaller University of Minnesota–sponsored ACCESS trial.
Dr. Lemkes reported having no financial conflicts regarding the COACT trial, funded by the Netherlands Heart Institute and unrestricted research grants from Biotronik and AstraZeneca.
PHILADELPHIA – Immediate coronary angiography following restoration of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-elevation MI (STEMI) offered no survival benefit at 1 year, compared with a strategy of delaying angiography until after neurologic recovery, in the landmark COACT trial, Jorrit Lemkes, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Nor was immediate coronary angiography advantageous in terms of any of the numerous secondary long-term endpoints, including rates of MI, revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks, or quality of life measures (see graphic), according to Dr. Lemkes, an interventional cardiologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.
COACT, a 552-patient randomized trial conducted at 19 Dutch centers, was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the role of immediate coronary angiography in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no signs of ST elevation on ECG. The study hypothesis was that this practice would result in improved survival and other outcomes. But such was not the case in the previously reported 90-day analysis (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 11;380[15]:1397-407). Nonetheless, the new 1-year results were eagerly awaited because observational data had suggested that immediate angiography after cardiac arrest without STEMI might provide a survival advantage that manifests late.
It now appears the observational studies were misleading. The 1-year survival rate was 61.4% in the immediate angioplasty group and similar at 64% with delayed angioplasty.
By way of background, Dr. Lemkes noted that both European and American guidelines give a class 1 recommendation to immediate coronary angiography with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who present with STEMI and cardiac arrest. It’s an endorsement grounded in compelling clinical trials evidence demonstrating that this practice reduces mortality and recurrent ischemia, salvages myocardium, and restores left ventricular function. In contrast, current guidelines offer only a tepid recommendation for immediate PCI in patients with cardiac arrest without STEMI because the only supporting evidence has been observational, with its inherent susceptibility to bias.
Discussant Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, said that the 1-year outcomes shouldn’t be surprising, since the 90-day results failed to show any between-group differences in myocardial injury or ischemia.
“At present, the results of COACT with regards to primary and secondary outcomes should guide practitioners that angiography remains essential, but that early angiography does not improve outcomes, compared to delayed angiography,” declared Dr. Cigarroa, chief of cardiology and professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
His choice of the words “at present” was key, as COACT won’t be the last word on the subject. Dr. Cigarroa believes that it’s critically important to understand the relatively narrow profile of the patients included in the study, because the results may or may not prove to be generalizable to the broader population of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients encountered in clinical practice. Nearly 80% of COACT participants had a witnessed arrest, the median time to basic life support was just 2 minutes, and the median time to return of spontaneous circulation was 15 minutes.
He urged his colleagues to stay tuned for reports from ongoing randomized trials examining the potential role of immediate angiography in broader populations of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without STEMI, including the Swedish DISCO (Direct or Subacute Coronary Angiography in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) trial and the smaller University of Minnesota–sponsored ACCESS trial.
Dr. Lemkes reported having no financial conflicts regarding the COACT trial, funded by the Netherlands Heart Institute and unrestricted research grants from Biotronik and AstraZeneca.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Pharmacist BP telemonitoring cut cardiovascular events, turned profit
PHILADELPHIA – A home blood pressure telemonitoring program featuring pharmacist management of patients with uncontrolled hypertension reduced cardiovascular events by half and was cost saving over the course of 5 years, even though the intervention ended after year 1, Karen L. Margolis, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The return on investment was 126%. That means that for every dollar spent on the intervention, that dollar was recouped by $1.00 plus another $1.26,” explained Dr. Margolis, a general internist who serves as executive director for research at the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn., and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
She presented 5-year follow-up data from the Hyperlink (Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Case Management to Control Hypertension) study, a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 16 primary care clinics. Half of the clinics were randomized to the intervention, which entailed home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist-led case management in collaboration with the primary care team. The other eight clinics provided usual care. The intervention portion of the trial, which lasted for 12 months, included 450 adults with uncontrolled hypertension as defined by repeated on-treatment blood pressure readings of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Participants’ baseline mean blood pressure was 148/85 mm Hg while on an average of one and a half antihypertensive drug classes. On average, pharmacists ended up adding one additional drug from a different antihypertensive drug class to achieve improved blood pressure control.
The details of the intervention and the short-term blood pressure results have previously been reported (JAMA. 2013 Jul 3;310[1]:46-56). Briefly, 6 months into the study, patients in the intervention arm averaged 11/6 mm Hg lower blood pressure than did the usual care controls. At 12 months – when the intervention ended – the between-group difference was similar at 10/5 mm Hg. At 18 months, the difference, while attenuated, remained significant at 7/3 mm Hg in favor of the intervention group. However, at 54 months, the intervention group’s advantage – a 3–mm Hg lower SBP and a 1–mm Hg lower DBP than in controls – was no longer significant.
The exciting new findings Dr. Margolis presented at the AHA scientific sessions focused on 5-year outcomes. Since HealthPartners is an integrated health care system, follow-up was essentially complete.
“None of the other telemetry studies I’m aware of have published anything on cardiovascular events. And we were somewhat surprised when we looked at our data to see fairly substantial differences in our primary outcome,” she noted.
That outcome was a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death occurring over 5 years. The rate was 4.4% in the intervention group and nearly double at 8.6% in controls. That translated to a 51% relative risk reduction. The biggest difference was in stroke: 4 cases in the intervention arm, 12 in usual care controls.
The 5-year coronary revascularization rate was 5.3% in the intervention arm and 10.4% in controls, for a 52% relative risk reduction.
A major caveat regarding the Hyperlink trial was that, even at 450 patients and 5 years of follow-up, the study was underpowered to show significant differences in event rates, with P =.09 for the primary endpoint.
That being said, the financial results were striking. The intervention cost $1,511 per patient in 2017 U.S. dollars. The cost of treatment for major adverse cardiovascular events totaled $758,000 in the intervention group and $1,538,000 in usual care controls. That works out to $3,420 less per patient in the intervention arm. Offset by the cost of the intervention, that spells a net savings of $1,908 per patient achieved by implementing the year-long intervention. It’s a rare instance in health care of an intervention that actually makes money.
These results were unusual enough that Dr. Margolis and her coinvestigators decided to feed their wealth of SBP readings into a microsimulation model, which they ran 1,000 times. The model predicted – in light of the fact that patients in the intervention group were on average 2 years older than the controls were – that the expected reduction in the primary endpoint was 12% rather than the observed 51% relative risk reduction.
How to explain the discrepancy? The Hyperlink results could have been due to chance. Or it could be, Dr. Margolis surmised, that the pharmacists helped accomplish improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia, smoking, or sedentary behavior. That’s unknown, since the investigators focused on changes in blood pressure only. Future studies of home telemonitoring and pharmacist case management of uncontrolled hypertension should be powered to detect significant differences in cardiovascular events and should track additional risk factors, she concluded.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
SOURCE: Margolis KL. AHA 2019. Abstract MDP232.
PHILADELPHIA – A home blood pressure telemonitoring program featuring pharmacist management of patients with uncontrolled hypertension reduced cardiovascular events by half and was cost saving over the course of 5 years, even though the intervention ended after year 1, Karen L. Margolis, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The return on investment was 126%. That means that for every dollar spent on the intervention, that dollar was recouped by $1.00 plus another $1.26,” explained Dr. Margolis, a general internist who serves as executive director for research at the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn., and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
She presented 5-year follow-up data from the Hyperlink (Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Case Management to Control Hypertension) study, a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 16 primary care clinics. Half of the clinics were randomized to the intervention, which entailed home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist-led case management in collaboration with the primary care team. The other eight clinics provided usual care. The intervention portion of the trial, which lasted for 12 months, included 450 adults with uncontrolled hypertension as defined by repeated on-treatment blood pressure readings of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Participants’ baseline mean blood pressure was 148/85 mm Hg while on an average of one and a half antihypertensive drug classes. On average, pharmacists ended up adding one additional drug from a different antihypertensive drug class to achieve improved blood pressure control.
The details of the intervention and the short-term blood pressure results have previously been reported (JAMA. 2013 Jul 3;310[1]:46-56). Briefly, 6 months into the study, patients in the intervention arm averaged 11/6 mm Hg lower blood pressure than did the usual care controls. At 12 months – when the intervention ended – the between-group difference was similar at 10/5 mm Hg. At 18 months, the difference, while attenuated, remained significant at 7/3 mm Hg in favor of the intervention group. However, at 54 months, the intervention group’s advantage – a 3–mm Hg lower SBP and a 1–mm Hg lower DBP than in controls – was no longer significant.
The exciting new findings Dr. Margolis presented at the AHA scientific sessions focused on 5-year outcomes. Since HealthPartners is an integrated health care system, follow-up was essentially complete.
“None of the other telemetry studies I’m aware of have published anything on cardiovascular events. And we were somewhat surprised when we looked at our data to see fairly substantial differences in our primary outcome,” she noted.
That outcome was a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death occurring over 5 years. The rate was 4.4% in the intervention group and nearly double at 8.6% in controls. That translated to a 51% relative risk reduction. The biggest difference was in stroke: 4 cases in the intervention arm, 12 in usual care controls.
The 5-year coronary revascularization rate was 5.3% in the intervention arm and 10.4% in controls, for a 52% relative risk reduction.
A major caveat regarding the Hyperlink trial was that, even at 450 patients and 5 years of follow-up, the study was underpowered to show significant differences in event rates, with P =.09 for the primary endpoint.
That being said, the financial results were striking. The intervention cost $1,511 per patient in 2017 U.S. dollars. The cost of treatment for major adverse cardiovascular events totaled $758,000 in the intervention group and $1,538,000 in usual care controls. That works out to $3,420 less per patient in the intervention arm. Offset by the cost of the intervention, that spells a net savings of $1,908 per patient achieved by implementing the year-long intervention. It’s a rare instance in health care of an intervention that actually makes money.
These results were unusual enough that Dr. Margolis and her coinvestigators decided to feed their wealth of SBP readings into a microsimulation model, which they ran 1,000 times. The model predicted – in light of the fact that patients in the intervention group were on average 2 years older than the controls were – that the expected reduction in the primary endpoint was 12% rather than the observed 51% relative risk reduction.
How to explain the discrepancy? The Hyperlink results could have been due to chance. Or it could be, Dr. Margolis surmised, that the pharmacists helped accomplish improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia, smoking, or sedentary behavior. That’s unknown, since the investigators focused on changes in blood pressure only. Future studies of home telemonitoring and pharmacist case management of uncontrolled hypertension should be powered to detect significant differences in cardiovascular events and should track additional risk factors, she concluded.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
SOURCE: Margolis KL. AHA 2019. Abstract MDP232.
PHILADELPHIA – A home blood pressure telemonitoring program featuring pharmacist management of patients with uncontrolled hypertension reduced cardiovascular events by half and was cost saving over the course of 5 years, even though the intervention ended after year 1, Karen L. Margolis, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The return on investment was 126%. That means that for every dollar spent on the intervention, that dollar was recouped by $1.00 plus another $1.26,” explained Dr. Margolis, a general internist who serves as executive director for research at the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn., and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
She presented 5-year follow-up data from the Hyperlink (Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Case Management to Control Hypertension) study, a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 16 primary care clinics. Half of the clinics were randomized to the intervention, which entailed home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist-led case management in collaboration with the primary care team. The other eight clinics provided usual care. The intervention portion of the trial, which lasted for 12 months, included 450 adults with uncontrolled hypertension as defined by repeated on-treatment blood pressure readings of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Participants’ baseline mean blood pressure was 148/85 mm Hg while on an average of one and a half antihypertensive drug classes. On average, pharmacists ended up adding one additional drug from a different antihypertensive drug class to achieve improved blood pressure control.
The details of the intervention and the short-term blood pressure results have previously been reported (JAMA. 2013 Jul 3;310[1]:46-56). Briefly, 6 months into the study, patients in the intervention arm averaged 11/6 mm Hg lower blood pressure than did the usual care controls. At 12 months – when the intervention ended – the between-group difference was similar at 10/5 mm Hg. At 18 months, the difference, while attenuated, remained significant at 7/3 mm Hg in favor of the intervention group. However, at 54 months, the intervention group’s advantage – a 3–mm Hg lower SBP and a 1–mm Hg lower DBP than in controls – was no longer significant.
The exciting new findings Dr. Margolis presented at the AHA scientific sessions focused on 5-year outcomes. Since HealthPartners is an integrated health care system, follow-up was essentially complete.
“None of the other telemetry studies I’m aware of have published anything on cardiovascular events. And we were somewhat surprised when we looked at our data to see fairly substantial differences in our primary outcome,” she noted.
That outcome was a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death occurring over 5 years. The rate was 4.4% in the intervention group and nearly double at 8.6% in controls. That translated to a 51% relative risk reduction. The biggest difference was in stroke: 4 cases in the intervention arm, 12 in usual care controls.
The 5-year coronary revascularization rate was 5.3% in the intervention arm and 10.4% in controls, for a 52% relative risk reduction.
A major caveat regarding the Hyperlink trial was that, even at 450 patients and 5 years of follow-up, the study was underpowered to show significant differences in event rates, with P =.09 for the primary endpoint.
That being said, the financial results were striking. The intervention cost $1,511 per patient in 2017 U.S. dollars. The cost of treatment for major adverse cardiovascular events totaled $758,000 in the intervention group and $1,538,000 in usual care controls. That works out to $3,420 less per patient in the intervention arm. Offset by the cost of the intervention, that spells a net savings of $1,908 per patient achieved by implementing the year-long intervention. It’s a rare instance in health care of an intervention that actually makes money.
These results were unusual enough that Dr. Margolis and her coinvestigators decided to feed their wealth of SBP readings into a microsimulation model, which they ran 1,000 times. The model predicted – in light of the fact that patients in the intervention group were on average 2 years older than the controls were – that the expected reduction in the primary endpoint was 12% rather than the observed 51% relative risk reduction.
How to explain the discrepancy? The Hyperlink results could have been due to chance. Or it could be, Dr. Margolis surmised, that the pharmacists helped accomplish improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia, smoking, or sedentary behavior. That’s unknown, since the investigators focused on changes in blood pressure only. Future studies of home telemonitoring and pharmacist case management of uncontrolled hypertension should be powered to detect significant differences in cardiovascular events and should track additional risk factors, she concluded.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
SOURCE: Margolis KL. AHA 2019. Abstract MDP232.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a work in progress
LOS ANGELES – When it comes to the optimal treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and diabetes, cardiologists like Mark T. Kearney, MB ChB, MD, remain stumped.
“Over the years, the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has been notoriously difficult [to treat], controversial, and ultimately involves aggressive catheterization of the heart to assess diastolic dysfunction, complex echocardiography, and invasive tests,” Dr. Kearney said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. “These patients have an ejection fraction of over 50% and classic signs and symptoms of heart failure. Studies of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers have been unsuccessful in this group of patients. We’re at the beginning of a journey in understanding this disorder, and it’s important, because more and more patients present to us with signs and symptoms of heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 50%.”
In a recent analysis of 1,797 patients with chronic heart failure, Dr. Kearney, British Heart Foundation Professor of Cardiovascular and Diabetes Research at the Leeds (England) Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, and colleagues examined whether beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors were associated with differential effects on mortality in patients with and without diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2018;41:136-42). Mean follow-up was 4 years.
For the ACE inhibitor component of the trial, the researchers correlated the dose of ramipril to outcomes and found that each milligram increase of ramipril reduced the risk of death by about 3%. “In the nondiabetic patients who did not receive an ACE inhibitor, mortality was about 60% – worse than most cancers,” Dr. Kearney said. “In patients with diabetes, there was a similar pattern. If you didn’t get an ACE inhibitor, mortality was 70%. So, if you get patients on an optimal dose of an ACE inhibitor, you improve their mortality substantially, whether they have diabetes or not.”
The beta-blocker component of the trial yielded similar results. “Among patients who did not receive a beta-blocker, the mortality was about 70% at 5 years – really terrible,” he said. “Every milligram of bisoprolol was associated with a reduction in mortality of about 9%. So, if a patient gets on an optimal dose of a beta-blocker and they have diabetes, it’s associated with prolongation of life over a year.”
Dr. Kearney said that patients often do not want to take an increased dose of a beta-blocker because of concerns about side effects, such as tiredness. “They ask me what the side effects of an increased dose would be. My answer is: ‘It will make you live longer.’ Usually, they’ll respond by agreeing to have a little bit more of the beta-blocker. The message here is, if you have a patient with ejection fraction heart failure and diabetes, get them on the optimal dose of a beta-blocker, even at the expense of an ACE inhibitor.”
In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology introduced guidelines for physicians to make a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The guidelines mandate that a diagnosis requires signs and symptoms of heart failure, elevated levels of natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic abnormalities of cardiac structure and/or function in the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or more (Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18[8]:891-975).
“Signs and symptoms of heart failure, elevated BNP [brain natriuretic peptide], and echocardiography allow us to make a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. Kearney, who is also dean of the Leeds University School of Medicine. “But we don’t know the outcome of these patients, we don’t know how to treat them, and we don’t know the impact on hospitalizations.”
In a large, unpublished cohort study conducted at Leeds, Dr. Kearney and colleagues evaluated how many patients met criteria for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction after undergoing a BNP measurement. Ultimately, 959 patients met criteria. After assessment, 23% had no heart failure, 44% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and 33% had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. They found that patients with preserved ejection fraction were older (mean age, 84 years); were more likely to be female; and had less ischemia, less diabetes, and more hypertension. In addition, patients with preserved ejection fraction had significantly better survival than patients with reduced ejection fraction over 5 years follow-up.
“What was really interesting were the findings related to hospitalization,” he said. “All 959 patients accounted for 20,517 days in the hospital over 5 years, which is the equivalent of 1 patient occupying a hospital bed for 56 years. This disorder [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction], despite having a lower mortality than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, leads to a significant burden on health care systems.”
Among patients with preserved ejection fraction, 82% were hospitalized for a noncardiovascular cause, 6.9% because of heart failure, and 11% were caused by other cardiovascular causes. Most of the hospital admissions were because of chest infections, falls, and other frailty-linked causes. “This link between systemic frailty and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction warrants further investigation,” Dr. Kearney said. “This is a major burden on patient hospital care.”
When the researchers examined outcomes in patients with and without diabetes, those with diabetes were younger, more likely to be male, and have a higher body mass index. They found that, in the presence of diabetes, mortality was increased in heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. “So, even at the age of 81 or 82, diabetes changes the pathophysiology of mortality in what was previously believed to be a benign disease,” he said.
In a subset analysis of patients with and without diabetes who were not taking a beta-blocker, there did not seem to be increased sympathetic activation in the patients with diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, nor a difference in heart rate between the nondiabetic patients and patients with diabetes. However, among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, those with diabetes had an increased heart rate.
“Is heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in diabetes benign? I think the answer is no,” Dr. Kearney said. “It increases hospitalization and is a major burden on health care systems. What should we do? We deal with comorbidity and fall risk. It’s good old-fashioned doctoring, really. We address frailty and respiratory tract infections, but the key thing here is that we need more research.”
Dr. Kearney reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
LOS ANGELES – When it comes to the optimal treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and diabetes, cardiologists like Mark T. Kearney, MB ChB, MD, remain stumped.
“Over the years, the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has been notoriously difficult [to treat], controversial, and ultimately involves aggressive catheterization of the heart to assess diastolic dysfunction, complex echocardiography, and invasive tests,” Dr. Kearney said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. “These patients have an ejection fraction of over 50% and classic signs and symptoms of heart failure. Studies of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers have been unsuccessful in this group of patients. We’re at the beginning of a journey in understanding this disorder, and it’s important, because more and more patients present to us with signs and symptoms of heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 50%.”
In a recent analysis of 1,797 patients with chronic heart failure, Dr. Kearney, British Heart Foundation Professor of Cardiovascular and Diabetes Research at the Leeds (England) Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, and colleagues examined whether beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors were associated with differential effects on mortality in patients with and without diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2018;41:136-42). Mean follow-up was 4 years.
For the ACE inhibitor component of the trial, the researchers correlated the dose of ramipril to outcomes and found that each milligram increase of ramipril reduced the risk of death by about 3%. “In the nondiabetic patients who did not receive an ACE inhibitor, mortality was about 60% – worse than most cancers,” Dr. Kearney said. “In patients with diabetes, there was a similar pattern. If you didn’t get an ACE inhibitor, mortality was 70%. So, if you get patients on an optimal dose of an ACE inhibitor, you improve their mortality substantially, whether they have diabetes or not.”
The beta-blocker component of the trial yielded similar results. “Among patients who did not receive a beta-blocker, the mortality was about 70% at 5 years – really terrible,” he said. “Every milligram of bisoprolol was associated with a reduction in mortality of about 9%. So, if a patient gets on an optimal dose of a beta-blocker and they have diabetes, it’s associated with prolongation of life over a year.”
Dr. Kearney said that patients often do not want to take an increased dose of a beta-blocker because of concerns about side effects, such as tiredness. “They ask me what the side effects of an increased dose would be. My answer is: ‘It will make you live longer.’ Usually, they’ll respond by agreeing to have a little bit more of the beta-blocker. The message here is, if you have a patient with ejection fraction heart failure and diabetes, get them on the optimal dose of a beta-blocker, even at the expense of an ACE inhibitor.”
In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology introduced guidelines for physicians to make a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The guidelines mandate that a diagnosis requires signs and symptoms of heart failure, elevated levels of natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic abnormalities of cardiac structure and/or function in the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or more (Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18[8]:891-975).
“Signs and symptoms of heart failure, elevated BNP [brain natriuretic peptide], and echocardiography allow us to make a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. Kearney, who is also dean of the Leeds University School of Medicine. “But we don’t know the outcome of these patients, we don’t know how to treat them, and we don’t know the impact on hospitalizations.”
In a large, unpublished cohort study conducted at Leeds, Dr. Kearney and colleagues evaluated how many patients met criteria for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction after undergoing a BNP measurement. Ultimately, 959 patients met criteria. After assessment, 23% had no heart failure, 44% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and 33% had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. They found that patients with preserved ejection fraction were older (mean age, 84 years); were more likely to be female; and had less ischemia, less diabetes, and more hypertension. In addition, patients with preserved ejection fraction had significantly better survival than patients with reduced ejection fraction over 5 years follow-up.
“What was really interesting were the findings related to hospitalization,” he said. “All 959 patients accounted for 20,517 days in the hospital over 5 years, which is the equivalent of 1 patient occupying a hospital bed for 56 years. This disorder [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction], despite having a lower mortality than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, leads to a significant burden on health care systems.”
Among patients with preserved ejection fraction, 82% were hospitalized for a noncardiovascular cause, 6.9% because of heart failure, and 11% were caused by other cardiovascular causes. Most of the hospital admissions were because of chest infections, falls, and other frailty-linked causes. “This link between systemic frailty and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction warrants further investigation,” Dr. Kearney said. “This is a major burden on patient hospital care.”
When the researchers examined outcomes in patients with and without diabetes, those with diabetes were younger, more likely to be male, and have a higher body mass index. They found that, in the presence of diabetes, mortality was increased in heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. “So, even at the age of 81 or 82, diabetes changes the pathophysiology of mortality in what was previously believed to be a benign disease,” he said.
In a subset analysis of patients with and without diabetes who were not taking a beta-blocker, there did not seem to be increased sympathetic activation in the patients with diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, nor a difference in heart rate between the nondiabetic patients and patients with diabetes. However, among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, those with diabetes had an increased heart rate.
“Is heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in diabetes benign? I think the answer is no,” Dr. Kearney said. “It increases hospitalization and is a major burden on health care systems. What should we do? We deal with comorbidity and fall risk. It’s good old-fashioned doctoring, really. We address frailty and respiratory tract infections, but the key thing here is that we need more research.”
Dr. Kearney reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
LOS ANGELES – When it comes to the optimal treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and diabetes, cardiologists like Mark T. Kearney, MB ChB, MD, remain stumped.
“Over the years, the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has been notoriously difficult [to treat], controversial, and ultimately involves aggressive catheterization of the heart to assess diastolic dysfunction, complex echocardiography, and invasive tests,” Dr. Kearney said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. “These patients have an ejection fraction of over 50% and classic signs and symptoms of heart failure. Studies of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers have been unsuccessful in this group of patients. We’re at the beginning of a journey in understanding this disorder, and it’s important, because more and more patients present to us with signs and symptoms of heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 50%.”
In a recent analysis of 1,797 patients with chronic heart failure, Dr. Kearney, British Heart Foundation Professor of Cardiovascular and Diabetes Research at the Leeds (England) Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, and colleagues examined whether beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors were associated with differential effects on mortality in patients with and without diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2018;41:136-42). Mean follow-up was 4 years.
For the ACE inhibitor component of the trial, the researchers correlated the dose of ramipril to outcomes and found that each milligram increase of ramipril reduced the risk of death by about 3%. “In the nondiabetic patients who did not receive an ACE inhibitor, mortality was about 60% – worse than most cancers,” Dr. Kearney said. “In patients with diabetes, there was a similar pattern. If you didn’t get an ACE inhibitor, mortality was 70%. So, if you get patients on an optimal dose of an ACE inhibitor, you improve their mortality substantially, whether they have diabetes or not.”
The beta-blocker component of the trial yielded similar results. “Among patients who did not receive a beta-blocker, the mortality was about 70% at 5 years – really terrible,” he said. “Every milligram of bisoprolol was associated with a reduction in mortality of about 9%. So, if a patient gets on an optimal dose of a beta-blocker and they have diabetes, it’s associated with prolongation of life over a year.”
Dr. Kearney said that patients often do not want to take an increased dose of a beta-blocker because of concerns about side effects, such as tiredness. “They ask me what the side effects of an increased dose would be. My answer is: ‘It will make you live longer.’ Usually, they’ll respond by agreeing to have a little bit more of the beta-blocker. The message here is, if you have a patient with ejection fraction heart failure and diabetes, get them on the optimal dose of a beta-blocker, even at the expense of an ACE inhibitor.”
In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology introduced guidelines for physicians to make a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The guidelines mandate that a diagnosis requires signs and symptoms of heart failure, elevated levels of natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic abnormalities of cardiac structure and/or function in the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or more (Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18[8]:891-975).
“Signs and symptoms of heart failure, elevated BNP [brain natriuretic peptide], and echocardiography allow us to make a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. Kearney, who is also dean of the Leeds University School of Medicine. “But we don’t know the outcome of these patients, we don’t know how to treat them, and we don’t know the impact on hospitalizations.”
In a large, unpublished cohort study conducted at Leeds, Dr. Kearney and colleagues evaluated how many patients met criteria for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction after undergoing a BNP measurement. Ultimately, 959 patients met criteria. After assessment, 23% had no heart failure, 44% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and 33% had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. They found that patients with preserved ejection fraction were older (mean age, 84 years); were more likely to be female; and had less ischemia, less diabetes, and more hypertension. In addition, patients with preserved ejection fraction had significantly better survival than patients with reduced ejection fraction over 5 years follow-up.
“What was really interesting were the findings related to hospitalization,” he said. “All 959 patients accounted for 20,517 days in the hospital over 5 years, which is the equivalent of 1 patient occupying a hospital bed for 56 years. This disorder [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction], despite having a lower mortality than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, leads to a significant burden on health care systems.”
Among patients with preserved ejection fraction, 82% were hospitalized for a noncardiovascular cause, 6.9% because of heart failure, and 11% were caused by other cardiovascular causes. Most of the hospital admissions were because of chest infections, falls, and other frailty-linked causes. “This link between systemic frailty and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction warrants further investigation,” Dr. Kearney said. “This is a major burden on patient hospital care.”
When the researchers examined outcomes in patients with and without diabetes, those with diabetes were younger, more likely to be male, and have a higher body mass index. They found that, in the presence of diabetes, mortality was increased in heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. “So, even at the age of 81 or 82, diabetes changes the pathophysiology of mortality in what was previously believed to be a benign disease,” he said.
In a subset analysis of patients with and without diabetes who were not taking a beta-blocker, there did not seem to be increased sympathetic activation in the patients with diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, nor a difference in heart rate between the nondiabetic patients and patients with diabetes. However, among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, those with diabetes had an increased heart rate.
“Is heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in diabetes benign? I think the answer is no,” Dr. Kearney said. “It increases hospitalization and is a major burden on health care systems. What should we do? We deal with comorbidity and fall risk. It’s good old-fashioned doctoring, really. We address frailty and respiratory tract infections, but the key thing here is that we need more research.”
Dr. Kearney reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM WCIRDC 2019