Cardiology

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rosuvastatin for cholesterol lowering was associated with slightly greater risks for kidney harm than atorvastatin, risks that were greater at higher-dose levels, in a large retrospective cohort study.

The most potent statin on the market, rosuvastatin has been linked with excess risk for kidney damage compared with atorvastatin in case reports and small trials, but there has been little surveillance of the issue following its approval in 2003.

The current analysis “is one of the first and largest real-world studies” examining rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin for risk for hematuria, proteinuria, and kidney failure with replacement therapy – dialysis or transplantation – across a range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) in a heterogeneous population, the researchers write.

“Our findings suggest the need for greater care in prescribing and monitoring of rosuvastatin, particularly in patients who are receiving high doses” or have severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), they concluded in their report published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The analysis included close to 1 million patients in the United States who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin from 2011 through 2019; they were followed a median of 3.1 years. Among the findings:

• Users of rosuvastatin had an 8% higher risk for hematuria, a 17% higher risk for proteinuria, and a 15% higher risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy, compared with those on atorvastatin
• The two groups avoided MI and stroke to similar extents
• About 44% of patients with severe CKD G4+ (eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were prescribed a higher rosuvastatin dosage than the maximum 10 mg/day recommended for such patients by the Food and Drug Administration.

From this study, “we do not know why the adherence of FDA dosing recommendation for rosuvastatin in patients with severe CKD is low,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“It is likely that not many clinicians are aware of rosuvastatin’s dosing recommendations [in severe CKD], or potential risks of hematuria or proteinuria,” speculated Dr. Shin, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“High-dose rosuvastatin [and its cardiovascular benefits] may not merit the risk, even if small, particularly in low eGFR,” she said. “Our study provides the opportunity to increase awareness of this clinical issue.”

“Future studies are warranted to shed light on the discrepancy between real-world practice and FDA dosing recommendations for high-dose rosuvastatin,” the researchers noted.

‘Greater awareness and education are key’

Invited to comment, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, a nephrologist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that the higher risk for nephrotoxicity with high-dose rosuvastatin versus high-dose atorvastatin was shown in the PLANET 1 trial published in 2015 and in, for example, a case report published in 2016 – which the researchers also mention.

“I was personally surprised” at the high proportion of patients with severe CKD who received higher than recommended doses of rosuvastatin, said Dr. Hiremath, who is also an associate professor at the University of Ottawa and a Freely Filtered podcaster, and not associated with the current study.

“We do see this occasionally,” he continued, “but either because someone is targeting LDL [cholesterol] and hasn’t noted the GFR, or possibly the patient was started on a high dose a long time ago and the kidney function has declined, and no one has noted the high dose.”

“Greater awareness and education are key,” observed Dr. Hiremath. “My personal bias is to have renal pharmacists involved in multidisciplinary clinics when GFR [is] less than 30 or so,” he said. “There are so many other tricky medicine/interaction issues” in patients with kidney disease.

Nevertheless, “I would be careful in drawing too many conclusions from an observational study,” Dr. Hiremath added. “There’s always the threat of residual confounding and selection bias,” which the researchers acknowledge, “and especially competing risks.”

For example, “if there is less cardiovascular death with rosuvastatin, then more people will remain alive to develop kidney failure.”
 

Dosing in practice unclear

Atorvastatin at 40-mg and 80-mg dosages and rosuvastatin at 20 mg and 40 mg are the only two statins considered high-intensity, the researchers noted.

Development of an 80-mg dosage for rosuvastatin was dropped because of hematuria and proteinuria safety signals highlighted at the time of rosuvastatin’s FDA approval.

However, there has been little postmarketing surveillance to assess real-world risk from high-intensity rosuvastatin, and it remains unclear whether and to what extent clinical practice adheres to the starting dosage recommended by the FDA in severe CKD, 5 mg/day with a maximum of 10 mg/day, the report noted.

The researchers analyzed deidentified electronic health record data from 40 health care organizations in the United States from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. They entered 152,101 new rosuvastatin users and 795,799 new atorvastatin users, and excluded patients with a history of rhabdomyolysis.

Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to CKD prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and demographics. Their age averaged 60 years, 48% were women, and 82% were White.

Hematuria was defined as dipstick hematuria > + or the presence of more than 3 red blood cells per high-power field in urine microscopy, at least twice. Proteinuria was defined as dipstick proteinuria > ++ or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g at least twice.

Overall, 2.9% of patients had hematuria (3.4% of the rosuvastatin group and 2.8% of those taking atorvastatin) and 1% of patients had proteinuria (1.2% and 0.9%, respectively).

After balancing baseline characteristics in both groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting, rosuvastatin treatment, compared with atorvastatin, was associated with significantly greater risks for hematuria (hazard ratio, 1.08), proteinuria (HR, 1.17), and kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (HR, 1.15).  

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had an approximately twofold higher risk for hematuria and ninefold higher risk for proteinuria during the follow-up compared with patients with eGFR of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Patients with eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 were commonly prescribed high-dose rosuvastatin (29.9% received the 20-mg dose and 14% the 40-mg dose), contrary to the labeling recommendation.

Dr. Shin reported receiving research Funding from the National Institutes of Health and Merck; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Hiremath reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The long-struggling field of cardiac xenotransplantation has had a very good year.

In January, the University of Maryland made history by keeping a 57-year-old man deemed too sick for a human heart transplant alive for 2 months with a genetically engineered pig heart. On July 12, New York University surgeons reported that heart function was “completely normal with excellent contractility” in two brain-dead patients with pig hearts beating in their chests for 72 hours.

NYU Langone Health

The NYU team approached the project with a decedent model in mind and, after discussions with their IRB equivalent, settled on a 72-hour window because that’s the time they typically keep people ventilated when trying to place their organs, explained Robert A. Montgomery, MD, DPhil, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute.

“There’s no real ethical argument for that,” he said in an interview. The consideration is what the family is willing to do when trying to balance doing “something very altruistic and good versus having closure.”

Some families have religious beliefs that burial or interment has to occur very rapidly, whereas others, including one of the family donors, were willing to have the research go on much longer, Dr. Montgomery said. Indeed, the next protocol is being written to consider maintaining the bodies for 2-4 weeks.

“People do vary and you have to kind of accommodate that variation,” he said. “For some people, this isn’t going to be what they’re going to want and that’s why you have to go through the consent process.”
 

Informed authorization

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center, said the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act recognizes an individual’s right to be an organ donor for transplant and research, but it “mentions nothing about maintaining you in a dead state artificially for research purposes.”

“It’s a major shift in what people are thinking about doing when they die or their relatives die,” he said.

Because organ donation is controlled at the state, not federal, level, the possibility of donating organs for xenotransplantation, like medical aid in dying, will vary between states, observed Dr. Caplan. The best way to ensure that patients whose organs are found to be unsuitable for transplantation have the option is to change state laws.

He noted that cases are already springing up where people are requesting postmortem sperm or egg donations without direct consents from the person who died. “So we have this new area opening up of handling the use of the dead body and we need to bring the law into sync with the possibilities that are out there.”

In terms of informed authorization (informed consent is reserved for the living), Dr. Caplan said there should be written evidence the person wanted to be a donor and, while not required by law, all survivors should give their permission and understand what’s going to be done in terms of the experiment, such as the use of animal parts, when the body will be returned, and the possibility of zoonotic viral infection.

“They have to fully accept that the person is dead and we’re just maintaining them artificially,” he said. “There’s no maintaining anyone who’s alive. That’s a source of a lot of confusion.”

Special committees also need to be appointed with voices from people in organ procurement, law, theology, and patient groups to monitor practice to ensure people who have given permission understood the process, that families have their questions answered independent of the research team, and that clear limits are set on how long experiments will last.

As to what those limits should be: “I think in terms of a week or 2,” Dr. Caplan said. “Obviously we could maintain bodies longer and people have. But I think, culturally in our society, going much past that starts to perhaps stress emotionally, psychologically, family and friends about getting closure.”

“I’m not as comfortable when people say things like, ‘How about 2 months?’ ” he said. “That’s a long time to sort of accept the fact that somebody has died but you can’t complete all the things that go along with the death.”

Dr. Caplan is also uncomfortable with the use of one-off emergency authorizations, as used for Maryland resident David Bennett Sr., who was rejected for standard heart transplantation and required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive.

“It’s too premature, I believe, even to try and rescue someone,” he said. “We need to learn more from the deceased models.”
 

A better model

Dr. Montgomery noted that primates are very imperfect models for predicting what’s going to happen in humans, and that in order to do xenotransplantation in living humans, there are only two pathways – the one-off emergency authorization or a clinical phase 1 trial.

The decedent model, he said, “will make human trials safer because it’s an intermediate step. You don’t have a living human’s life on the line when you’re trying to do iterative changes and improve the procedure.”

Joe Carrotta for NYU Langone Health

The team, for example, omitted a perfusion pump that was used in the Maryland case and would likely have made its way into phase 1 trials based on baboon data that suggested it was important to have the heart on the pump for hours before it was transplanted, he said. “We didn’t do any of that. We just did it like we would do a regular heart transplant and it started right up, immediately, and started to work.”

The researchers did not release details on the immunosuppression regimen, but noted that, unlike Maryland, they also did not use the experimental anti-CD40 antibody to tamp down the recipients’ immune system.

Although Mr. Bennett’s autopsy did not show any conventional sign of graft rejection, the transplanted pig heart was infected with porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and Mr. Bennett showed traces of DNA from PCMV in his circulation.
 

Nailing down safety

Dr. Montgomery said he wouldn’t rule out xenotransplantation in a living human, but that the safety issues need to be nailed down. “I think that the tests used on the pig that was the donor for the Bennett case were not sensitive enough for latent virus, and that’s how it slipped through. So there was a bit of going back to the drawing board, really looking at each of the tests, and being sure we had the sensitivity to pick up a latent virus.”

He noted that United Therapeutics, which funded the research and provided the engineered pigs through its subsidiary Revivicor, has created and validated a more sensitive polymerase chain reaction test that covers some 35 different pathogens, microbes, and parasites. NYU has also developed its own platform to repeat the testing and for monitoring after the transplant. “The ones that we’re currently using would have picked up the virus.”

Stuart Russell, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in advanced HF at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said “the biggest thing from my perspective is those two amazing families that were willing let this happen. ... If 20 years from now, this is what we’re doing, it’s related to these families being this generous at a really tough time in their lives.”

Dr. Russell said he awaits publication of the data on what the pathology of the heart looks like, but that the experiments “help to give us a lot of reassurance that we don’t need to worry about hyperacute rejection,” which by definition is going to happen in the first 24-48 hours.

That said, longer-term data is essential to potential safety issues. Notably, among the 10 genetic modifications made to the pigs, four were porcine gene knockouts, including a growth hormone receptor knockout to prevent abnormal organ growth inside the recipient’s chest. As a result, the organs seem to be small for the age of the pig and just don’t grow that well, admitted Dr. Montgomery, who said they are currently analyzing this with echocardiography.

Dr. Russell said this may create a sizing issue, but also “if you have a heart that’s more stressed in the pig, from the point of being a donor, maybe it’s not as good a heart as if it was growing normally. But that kind of stuff, I think, is going to take more than two cases and longer-term data to sort out.”

Sharon Hunt, MD, professor emerita, Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, and past president of the International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation, said it’s not the technical aspects, but the biology of xenotransplantation that’s really daunting.

“It’s not the physical act of doing it, like they needed a bigger heart or a smaller heart. Those are technical problems but they’ll manage them,” she said. “The big problem is biological – and the bottom line is we don’t really know. We may have overcome hyperacute rejection, which is great, but the rest remains to be seen.”

Dr. Hunt, who worked with heart transplantation pioneer Norman Shumway, MD, and spent decades caring for patients after transplantation, said most families will consent to 24 or 48 hours or even a week of experimentation on a brain-dead loved one, but what the transplant community wants to know is whether this is workable for many months.

“So the fact that the xenotransplant works for 72 hours, yeah, that’s groovy. But, you know, the answer is kind of ‘so what,’ ” she said. “I’d like to see this go for months, like they were trying to do in the human in Maryland.”

For phase 1 trials, even longer-term survival with or without rejection or with rejection that’s treatable is needed, Dr. Hunt suggested.

“We haven’t seen that yet. The Maryland people were very valiant but they lost the cause,” she said. “There’s just so much more to do before we have a viable model to start anything like a phase 1 trial. I’d love it if that happens in my lifetime, but I’m not sure it’s going to.”

Dr. Russell and Dr. Hunt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

The long-struggling field of cardiac xenotransplantation has had a very good year.

In January, the University of Maryland made history by keeping a 57-year-old man deemed too sick for a human heart transplant alive for 2 months with a genetically engineered pig heart. On July 12, New York University surgeons reported that heart function was “completely normal with excellent contractility” in two brain-dead patients with pig hearts beating in their chests for 72 hours.

NYU Langone Health

The NYU team approached the project with a decedent model in mind and, after discussions with their IRB equivalent, settled on a 72-hour window because that’s the time they typically keep people ventilated when trying to place their organs, explained Robert A. Montgomery, MD, DPhil, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute.

“There’s no real ethical argument for that,” he said in an interview. The consideration is what the family is willing to do when trying to balance doing “something very altruistic and good versus having closure.”

Some families have religious beliefs that burial or interment has to occur very rapidly, whereas others, including one of the family donors, were willing to have the research go on much longer, Dr. Montgomery said. Indeed, the next protocol is being written to consider maintaining the bodies for 2-4 weeks.

“People do vary and you have to kind of accommodate that variation,” he said. “For some people, this isn’t going to be what they’re going to want and that’s why you have to go through the consent process.”
 

Informed authorization

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center, said the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act recognizes an individual’s right to be an organ donor for transplant and research, but it “mentions nothing about maintaining you in a dead state artificially for research purposes.”

“It’s a major shift in what people are thinking about doing when they die or their relatives die,” he said.

Because organ donation is controlled at the state, not federal, level, the possibility of donating organs for xenotransplantation, like medical aid in dying, will vary between states, observed Dr. Caplan. The best way to ensure that patients whose organs are found to be unsuitable for transplantation have the option is to change state laws.

He noted that cases are already springing up where people are requesting postmortem sperm or egg donations without direct consents from the person who died. “So we have this new area opening up of handling the use of the dead body and we need to bring the law into sync with the possibilities that are out there.”

In terms of informed authorization (informed consent is reserved for the living), Dr. Caplan said there should be written evidence the person wanted to be a donor and, while not required by law, all survivors should give their permission and understand what’s going to be done in terms of the experiment, such as the use of animal parts, when the body will be returned, and the possibility of zoonotic viral infection.

“They have to fully accept that the person is dead and we’re just maintaining them artificially,” he said. “There’s no maintaining anyone who’s alive. That’s a source of a lot of confusion.”

Special committees also need to be appointed with voices from people in organ procurement, law, theology, and patient groups to monitor practice to ensure people who have given permission understood the process, that families have their questions answered independent of the research team, and that clear limits are set on how long experiments will last.

As to what those limits should be: “I think in terms of a week or 2,” Dr. Caplan said. “Obviously we could maintain bodies longer and people have. But I think, culturally in our society, going much past that starts to perhaps stress emotionally, psychologically, family and friends about getting closure.”

“I’m not as comfortable when people say things like, ‘How about 2 months?’ ” he said. “That’s a long time to sort of accept the fact that somebody has died but you can’t complete all the things that go along with the death.”

Dr. Caplan is also uncomfortable with the use of one-off emergency authorizations, as used for Maryland resident David Bennett Sr., who was rejected for standard heart transplantation and required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive.

“It’s too premature, I believe, even to try and rescue someone,” he said. “We need to learn more from the deceased models.”
 

A better model

Dr. Montgomery noted that primates are very imperfect models for predicting what’s going to happen in humans, and that in order to do xenotransplantation in living humans, there are only two pathways – the one-off emergency authorization or a clinical phase 1 trial.

The decedent model, he said, “will make human trials safer because it’s an intermediate step. You don’t have a living human’s life on the line when you’re trying to do iterative changes and improve the procedure.”

Joe Carrotta for NYU Langone Health

The team, for example, omitted a perfusion pump that was used in the Maryland case and would likely have made its way into phase 1 trials based on baboon data that suggested it was important to have the heart on the pump for hours before it was transplanted, he said. “We didn’t do any of that. We just did it like we would do a regular heart transplant and it started right up, immediately, and started to work.”

The researchers did not release details on the immunosuppression regimen, but noted that, unlike Maryland, they also did not use the experimental anti-CD40 antibody to tamp down the recipients’ immune system.

Although Mr. Bennett’s autopsy did not show any conventional sign of graft rejection, the transplanted pig heart was infected with porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and Mr. Bennett showed traces of DNA from PCMV in his circulation.
 

Nailing down safety

Dr. Montgomery said he wouldn’t rule out xenotransplantation in a living human, but that the safety issues need to be nailed down. “I think that the tests used on the pig that was the donor for the Bennett case were not sensitive enough for latent virus, and that’s how it slipped through. So there was a bit of going back to the drawing board, really looking at each of the tests, and being sure we had the sensitivity to pick up a latent virus.”

He noted that United Therapeutics, which funded the research and provided the engineered pigs through its subsidiary Revivicor, has created and validated a more sensitive polymerase chain reaction test that covers some 35 different pathogens, microbes, and parasites. NYU has also developed its own platform to repeat the testing and for monitoring after the transplant. “The ones that we’re currently using would have picked up the virus.”

Stuart Russell, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in advanced HF at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said “the biggest thing from my perspective is those two amazing families that were willing let this happen. ... If 20 years from now, this is what we’re doing, it’s related to these families being this generous at a really tough time in their lives.”

Dr. Russell said he awaits publication of the data on what the pathology of the heart looks like, but that the experiments “help to give us a lot of reassurance that we don’t need to worry about hyperacute rejection,” which by definition is going to happen in the first 24-48 hours.

That said, longer-term data is essential to potential safety issues. Notably, among the 10 genetic modifications made to the pigs, four were porcine gene knockouts, including a growth hormone receptor knockout to prevent abnormal organ growth inside the recipient’s chest. As a result, the organs seem to be small for the age of the pig and just don’t grow that well, admitted Dr. Montgomery, who said they are currently analyzing this with echocardiography.

Dr. Russell said this may create a sizing issue, but also “if you have a heart that’s more stressed in the pig, from the point of being a donor, maybe it’s not as good a heart as if it was growing normally. But that kind of stuff, I think, is going to take more than two cases and longer-term data to sort out.”

Sharon Hunt, MD, professor emerita, Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, and past president of the International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation, said it’s not the technical aspects, but the biology of xenotransplantation that’s really daunting.

“It’s not the physical act of doing it, like they needed a bigger heart or a smaller heart. Those are technical problems but they’ll manage them,” she said. “The big problem is biological – and the bottom line is we don’t really know. We may have overcome hyperacute rejection, which is great, but the rest remains to be seen.”

Dr. Hunt, who worked with heart transplantation pioneer Norman Shumway, MD, and spent decades caring for patients after transplantation, said most families will consent to 24 or 48 hours or even a week of experimentation on a brain-dead loved one, but what the transplant community wants to know is whether this is workable for many months.

“So the fact that the xenotransplant works for 72 hours, yeah, that’s groovy. But, you know, the answer is kind of ‘so what,’ ” she said. “I’d like to see this go for months, like they were trying to do in the human in Maryland.”

For phase 1 trials, even longer-term survival with or without rejection or with rejection that’s treatable is needed, Dr. Hunt suggested.

“We haven’t seen that yet. The Maryland people were very valiant but they lost the cause,” she said. “There’s just so much more to do before we have a viable model to start anything like a phase 1 trial. I’d love it if that happens in my lifetime, but I’m not sure it’s going to.”

Dr. Russell and Dr. Hunt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

The long-struggling field of cardiac xenotransplantation has had a very good year.

In January, the University of Maryland made history by keeping a 57-year-old man deemed too sick for a human heart transplant alive for 2 months with a genetically engineered pig heart. On July 12, New York University surgeons reported that heart function was “completely normal with excellent contractility” in two brain-dead patients with pig hearts beating in their chests for 72 hours.

NYU Langone Health

The NYU team approached the project with a decedent model in mind and, after discussions with their IRB equivalent, settled on a 72-hour window because that’s the time they typically keep people ventilated when trying to place their organs, explained Robert A. Montgomery, MD, DPhil, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute.

“There’s no real ethical argument for that,” he said in an interview. The consideration is what the family is willing to do when trying to balance doing “something very altruistic and good versus having closure.”

Some families have religious beliefs that burial or interment has to occur very rapidly, whereas others, including one of the family donors, were willing to have the research go on much longer, Dr. Montgomery said. Indeed, the next protocol is being written to consider maintaining the bodies for 2-4 weeks.

“People do vary and you have to kind of accommodate that variation,” he said. “For some people, this isn’t going to be what they’re going to want and that’s why you have to go through the consent process.”
 

Informed authorization

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center, said the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act recognizes an individual’s right to be an organ donor for transplant and research, but it “mentions nothing about maintaining you in a dead state artificially for research purposes.”

“It’s a major shift in what people are thinking about doing when they die or their relatives die,” he said.

Because organ donation is controlled at the state, not federal, level, the possibility of donating organs for xenotransplantation, like medical aid in dying, will vary between states, observed Dr. Caplan. The best way to ensure that patients whose organs are found to be unsuitable for transplantation have the option is to change state laws.

He noted that cases are already springing up where people are requesting postmortem sperm or egg donations without direct consents from the person who died. “So we have this new area opening up of handling the use of the dead body and we need to bring the law into sync with the possibilities that are out there.”

In terms of informed authorization (informed consent is reserved for the living), Dr. Caplan said there should be written evidence the person wanted to be a donor and, while not required by law, all survivors should give their permission and understand what’s going to be done in terms of the experiment, such as the use of animal parts, when the body will be returned, and the possibility of zoonotic viral infection.

“They have to fully accept that the person is dead and we’re just maintaining them artificially,” he said. “There’s no maintaining anyone who’s alive. That’s a source of a lot of confusion.”

Special committees also need to be appointed with voices from people in organ procurement, law, theology, and patient groups to monitor practice to ensure people who have given permission understood the process, that families have their questions answered independent of the research team, and that clear limits are set on how long experiments will last.

As to what those limits should be: “I think in terms of a week or 2,” Dr. Caplan said. “Obviously we could maintain bodies longer and people have. But I think, culturally in our society, going much past that starts to perhaps stress emotionally, psychologically, family and friends about getting closure.”

“I’m not as comfortable when people say things like, ‘How about 2 months?’ ” he said. “That’s a long time to sort of accept the fact that somebody has died but you can’t complete all the things that go along with the death.”

Dr. Caplan is also uncomfortable with the use of one-off emergency authorizations, as used for Maryland resident David Bennett Sr., who was rejected for standard heart transplantation and required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive.

“It’s too premature, I believe, even to try and rescue someone,” he said. “We need to learn more from the deceased models.”
 

A better model

Dr. Montgomery noted that primates are very imperfect models for predicting what’s going to happen in humans, and that in order to do xenotransplantation in living humans, there are only two pathways – the one-off emergency authorization or a clinical phase 1 trial.

The decedent model, he said, “will make human trials safer because it’s an intermediate step. You don’t have a living human’s life on the line when you’re trying to do iterative changes and improve the procedure.”

Joe Carrotta for NYU Langone Health

The team, for example, omitted a perfusion pump that was used in the Maryland case and would likely have made its way into phase 1 trials based on baboon data that suggested it was important to have the heart on the pump for hours before it was transplanted, he said. “We didn’t do any of that. We just did it like we would do a regular heart transplant and it started right up, immediately, and started to work.”

The researchers did not release details on the immunosuppression regimen, but noted that, unlike Maryland, they also did not use the experimental anti-CD40 antibody to tamp down the recipients’ immune system.

Although Mr. Bennett’s autopsy did not show any conventional sign of graft rejection, the transplanted pig heart was infected with porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and Mr. Bennett showed traces of DNA from PCMV in his circulation.
 

Nailing down safety

Dr. Montgomery said he wouldn’t rule out xenotransplantation in a living human, but that the safety issues need to be nailed down. “I think that the tests used on the pig that was the donor for the Bennett case were not sensitive enough for latent virus, and that’s how it slipped through. So there was a bit of going back to the drawing board, really looking at each of the tests, and being sure we had the sensitivity to pick up a latent virus.”

He noted that United Therapeutics, which funded the research and provided the engineered pigs through its subsidiary Revivicor, has created and validated a more sensitive polymerase chain reaction test that covers some 35 different pathogens, microbes, and parasites. NYU has also developed its own platform to repeat the testing and for monitoring after the transplant. “The ones that we’re currently using would have picked up the virus.”

Stuart Russell, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in advanced HF at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said “the biggest thing from my perspective is those two amazing families that were willing let this happen. ... If 20 years from now, this is what we’re doing, it’s related to these families being this generous at a really tough time in their lives.”

Dr. Russell said he awaits publication of the data on what the pathology of the heart looks like, but that the experiments “help to give us a lot of reassurance that we don’t need to worry about hyperacute rejection,” which by definition is going to happen in the first 24-48 hours.

That said, longer-term data is essential to potential safety issues. Notably, among the 10 genetic modifications made to the pigs, four were porcine gene knockouts, including a growth hormone receptor knockout to prevent abnormal organ growth inside the recipient’s chest. As a result, the organs seem to be small for the age of the pig and just don’t grow that well, admitted Dr. Montgomery, who said they are currently analyzing this with echocardiography.

Dr. Russell said this may create a sizing issue, but also “if you have a heart that’s more stressed in the pig, from the point of being a donor, maybe it’s not as good a heart as if it was growing normally. But that kind of stuff, I think, is going to take more than two cases and longer-term data to sort out.”

Sharon Hunt, MD, professor emerita, Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, and past president of the International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation, said it’s not the technical aspects, but the biology of xenotransplantation that’s really daunting.

“It’s not the physical act of doing it, like they needed a bigger heart or a smaller heart. Those are technical problems but they’ll manage them,” she said. “The big problem is biological – and the bottom line is we don’t really know. We may have overcome hyperacute rejection, which is great, but the rest remains to be seen.”

Dr. Hunt, who worked with heart transplantation pioneer Norman Shumway, MD, and spent decades caring for patients after transplantation, said most families will consent to 24 or 48 hours or even a week of experimentation on a brain-dead loved one, but what the transplant community wants to know is whether this is workable for many months.

“So the fact that the xenotransplant works for 72 hours, yeah, that’s groovy. But, you know, the answer is kind of ‘so what,’ ” she said. “I’d like to see this go for months, like they were trying to do in the human in Maryland.”

For phase 1 trials, even longer-term survival with or without rejection or with rejection that’s treatable is needed, Dr. Hunt suggested.

“We haven’t seen that yet. The Maryland people were very valiant but they lost the cause,” she said. “There’s just so much more to do before we have a viable model to start anything like a phase 1 trial. I’d love it if that happens in my lifetime, but I’m not sure it’s going to.”

Dr. Russell and Dr. Hunt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Avocados are a rich source of fiber and healthy fat, but eating one a day for 6 months did not shrink waist size or belly fat, according to the findings of a new study.

But it did improve diet quality and led to modest lowering of total cholesterol.

More than 1,000 adults with overweight or obesity and a large waist – at least 35 inches in women and 40 inches in men – took part in this U.S. study, called the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial (HAT).

tookapic/Pixabay

The people in the study were divided into two groups: usual diet plus one large avocado every day and usual diet with two avocados at most per month (control group).

Those in the avocado-a-day group were given a regular supply of fresh avocados along with written instructions for how to ripen and prepare them.

They had MRI scans to measure belly fat and fat around other organs at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.

After 6 months, the people who ate an avocado a day did not have less fat around their middles – the main trial outcome – compared with people in the control group.

But at 6 months, those in the avocado-a-day group had:

• No weight gain. People’s weight remained stable in both groups.
• Improved diet quality by 8 points on a 100-point scale
• A 2.9-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol
• A 2.5-mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol

The study was done by researchers at Penn State University; Tufts University; Loma Linda University; and the University of California, Los Angeles, with coordinating support from Wake Forest University.

It was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“While the avocados did not affect belly fat or weight gain, the study still provides evidence that avocados can be a beneficial addition to a well-balanced diet,” Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, one of the researchers and a professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, University Park, said in a news release.

“Incorporating an avocado per day in this study did not cause weight gain and also caused a slight decrease in LDL cholesterol, which are all important findings for better health,” she said.

Similarly, study researcher Joan Sabaté, MD, a professor at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said: “While one avocado a day did not lead to clinically significant improvements in abdominal fat and other cardiometabolic risk factors, consuming one avocado a day did not result in body weight gain.”

“This is positive,” he said, “because eating extra calories from avocados doesn’t impact body weight or abdominal fat, and it slightly decreases total and LDL cholesterol.”

Kristina S. Petersen, PhD, another of the researchers and an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, pointed out that people are generally poor at adhering to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

This study suggests that an avocado a day can improve diet quality, she noted, which “ is important because we know a higher diet quality is associated with lower risk of several diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.”

But the researchers also stressed that it is important to consider the diet as a whole.

“Consistent with prior observations, a change in dietary patterns rather than a single food or nutrient may be necessary to achieve clinically significant improvements” in belly fat and other risk factors for heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, they wrote. 

HAT was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which also supplied the avocados.

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

Avocados are a rich source of fiber and healthy fat, but eating one a day for 6 months did not shrink waist size or belly fat, according to the findings of a new study.

But it did improve diet quality and led to modest lowering of total cholesterol.

More than 1,000 adults with overweight or obesity and a large waist – at least 35 inches in women and 40 inches in men – took part in this U.S. study, called the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial (HAT).

tookapic/Pixabay

The people in the study were divided into two groups: usual diet plus one large avocado every day and usual diet with two avocados at most per month (control group).

Those in the avocado-a-day group were given a regular supply of fresh avocados along with written instructions for how to ripen and prepare them.

They had MRI scans to measure belly fat and fat around other organs at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.

After 6 months, the people who ate an avocado a day did not have less fat around their middles – the main trial outcome – compared with people in the control group.

But at 6 months, those in the avocado-a-day group had:

• No weight gain. People’s weight remained stable in both groups.
• Improved diet quality by 8 points on a 100-point scale
• A 2.9-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol
• A 2.5-mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol

The study was done by researchers at Penn State University; Tufts University; Loma Linda University; and the University of California, Los Angeles, with coordinating support from Wake Forest University.

It was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“While the avocados did not affect belly fat or weight gain, the study still provides evidence that avocados can be a beneficial addition to a well-balanced diet,” Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, one of the researchers and a professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, University Park, said in a news release.

“Incorporating an avocado per day in this study did not cause weight gain and also caused a slight decrease in LDL cholesterol, which are all important findings for better health,” she said.

Similarly, study researcher Joan Sabaté, MD, a professor at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said: “While one avocado a day did not lead to clinically significant improvements in abdominal fat and other cardiometabolic risk factors, consuming one avocado a day did not result in body weight gain.”

“This is positive,” he said, “because eating extra calories from avocados doesn’t impact body weight or abdominal fat, and it slightly decreases total and LDL cholesterol.”

Kristina S. Petersen, PhD, another of the researchers and an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, pointed out that people are generally poor at adhering to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

This study suggests that an avocado a day can improve diet quality, she noted, which “ is important because we know a higher diet quality is associated with lower risk of several diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.”

But the researchers also stressed that it is important to consider the diet as a whole.

“Consistent with prior observations, a change in dietary patterns rather than a single food or nutrient may be necessary to achieve clinically significant improvements” in belly fat and other risk factors for heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, they wrote. 

HAT was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which also supplied the avocados.

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

Avocados are a rich source of fiber and healthy fat, but eating one a day for 6 months did not shrink waist size or belly fat, according to the findings of a new study.

But it did improve diet quality and led to modest lowering of total cholesterol.

More than 1,000 adults with overweight or obesity and a large waist – at least 35 inches in women and 40 inches in men – took part in this U.S. study, called the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial (HAT).

tookapic/Pixabay

The people in the study were divided into two groups: usual diet plus one large avocado every day and usual diet with two avocados at most per month (control group).

Those in the avocado-a-day group were given a regular supply of fresh avocados along with written instructions for how to ripen and prepare them.

They had MRI scans to measure belly fat and fat around other organs at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.

After 6 months, the people who ate an avocado a day did not have less fat around their middles – the main trial outcome – compared with people in the control group.

But at 6 months, those in the avocado-a-day group had:

• No weight gain. People’s weight remained stable in both groups.
• Improved diet quality by 8 points on a 100-point scale
• A 2.9-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol
• A 2.5-mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol

The study was done by researchers at Penn State University; Tufts University; Loma Linda University; and the University of California, Los Angeles, with coordinating support from Wake Forest University.

It was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“While the avocados did not affect belly fat or weight gain, the study still provides evidence that avocados can be a beneficial addition to a well-balanced diet,” Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, one of the researchers and a professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, University Park, said in a news release.

“Incorporating an avocado per day in this study did not cause weight gain and also caused a slight decrease in LDL cholesterol, which are all important findings for better health,” she said.

Similarly, study researcher Joan Sabaté, MD, a professor at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said: “While one avocado a day did not lead to clinically significant improvements in abdominal fat and other cardiometabolic risk factors, consuming one avocado a day did not result in body weight gain.”

“This is positive,” he said, “because eating extra calories from avocados doesn’t impact body weight or abdominal fat, and it slightly decreases total and LDL cholesterol.”

Kristina S. Petersen, PhD, another of the researchers and an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, pointed out that people are generally poor at adhering to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

This study suggests that an avocado a day can improve diet quality, she noted, which “ is important because we know a higher diet quality is associated with lower risk of several diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.”

But the researchers also stressed that it is important to consider the diet as a whole.

“Consistent with prior observations, a change in dietary patterns rather than a single food or nutrient may be necessary to achieve clinically significant improvements” in belly fat and other risk factors for heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, they wrote. 

HAT was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which also supplied the avocados.

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

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 62-year-old woman with a past medical history of type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and remote myocardial infarction (MI) presents to her primary care office for a preventive visit. She is a nonsmoker and has been taking her daily medications as prescribed, including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, high-intensity statin, and aspirin. Her diabetes is well controlled. What else would you consider recommending to decrease this patient’s risk for future CVEs?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality, affecting more than 50% of patients older than 60.² Despite control of risk factors with standard treatment modalities, patients with established CVD remain at high risk for future events, which makes elucidating and targeting other causative pathways essential.³

Inflammation has been identified as a key player in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and its downstream effects, with increased inflammatory markers correlating with increased risk for CVEs.⁴ Due to these findings, anti-inflammatory treatments have been under investigation as agents to further reduce risk for CVEs. In 1 such trial, the Canakinumab Antiinflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS), patients with MI and elevated C-reactive protein levels treated with the interleukin-1 beta inhibitor canakinumab showed reduced risk for future CVEs compared to those receiving placebo.⁵ However, due to canakinumab’s high cost, inconvenient subcutaneous administration, and increased incidence of fatal infections, other agents are under investigation.

Colchicine is a potent anti-inflammatory agent, with approval in the United States for treatment of gout and familial Mediterranean fever. It works broadly to reduce inflammation by disrupting tubulin polymerization.^6,7 Colchicine decreases interleukin-1 beta production through inactivation of the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway, which has been associated with the inflammatory component driving atherosclerotic plaque progression and instability.^5,8 Colchicine’s oral administration, relative cost-effectiveness, and safety profile make it an attractive option for potential use in secondary prevention of CVEs.

The Low-Dose Colchicine (LoDoCo) trial, published in 2013, demonstrated a reduction in CVEs in those with CVD taking guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) plus colchicine 0.5 mg/d, compared with those taking GDMT alone.⁹ However, the LoDoCo study enrolled only 532 patients and was not placebo controlled. The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), published in 2019, was a randomized, ­double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that aimed to further evaluate the effects of colchicine on CVEs on a larger scale and to assess its longer-term safety.¹⁰ In this study, the colchicine group had a significantly lower risk of CVEs vs placebo, with a comparable safety profile.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Fewer CVEs occurred when colchicine was added to the regimen

The randomized, multicenter, double-blind Low Dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial evaluated whether colchicine 0.5 mg daily reduces CV death, spontaneous (nonprocedural) MI, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization in patients with chronic CAD (composite primary endpoint). This trial included 5522 patients, ages 35 to 82, in Australia and the Netherlands. Patients were eligible to participate if they had evidence of CAD by invasive coronary angiography, coronary calcium score, or computed tomography angiography, as well as evidence of clinical stability for 6 months. Exclusion criteria included moderate-to-severe renal impairment, severe heart failure, severe valvular disease, or intolerance to colchicine.

Patients (N = 6528) took colchicine 0.5 mg daily as part of a 1-month, open-label run-in phase; 1006 patients stopped taking colchicine during this time. Perceived adverse effects were observed in 611 of these patients, the most common being gastrointestinal (GI) upset (437 patients). After the run-in phase, the remaining 5522 patients were randomized to either the colchicine or placebo group. Both groups continued to receive GDMT for CVD, including antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulants, and hypertensive therapy as indicated. Lipid-lowering therapies were continued in 96.7% of the colchicine group and 96.6% of the placebo group. These patients were then followed for a minimum of 1 year (median duration, 28.6 months).

Continue to: The primary endpoint...

The primary endpoint occurred less frequently in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (6.8% vs 9.6%; P < .001; number needed to treat = 36). The incidence rates for 2 of the individual outcomes in the composite, MI (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93) and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94), were significantly lower in the colchicine group. The other outcomes were no different from placebo.¹

There was a similar incidence of serious adverse events, such as noncardiovascular death, cancer diagnosis, and hospitalization for infection, pneumonia, or GI issues. High-dose statins were used by 3413 patients (61.8%). Myalgia (data collected only from the Netherlands cohort) was reported more commonly in the colchicine group than the placebo group (21.2% vs 18.5%; cumulative incidence ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31). Myotoxic effects were rare in both groups.¹

WHAT’S NEW

RCT supports potential for anti-inflammatory therapy in CAD

This large RCT demonstrated that the addition of daily colchicine reduces CVE risk in patients with known CAD while maintaining a good safety profile.¹

CAVEATS

Watch for potential drug interactions in patients with renal dysfunction

Prescribers should be aware of potential drug interactions, especially in those with renal or hepatic dysfunction, when prescribing colchicine, as it is metabolized through cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) and excreted via the P-glycoprotein transport system, by which many statins are also metabolized and act as a competitive substrate.⁷ In addition, simvastatin, and to a lesser degree atorvastatin, are CYP3A4 inhibitors.

Also of note, the 0.5-mg colchicine tablet is not available in some countries—including the United States, where only 0.6-mg tablets are available. The 0.6-mg dose would likely have the same benefit and similar adverse effect profile but was not included in the study.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

GI tolerability may be an issue

Colchicine is widely available and relatively low in cost, at approximately $32 per month for the 0.6-mg daily tablets. A major limitation is lack of tolerability, as adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain are frequently reported.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 62-year-old woman with a past medical history of type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and remote myocardial infarction (MI) presents to her primary care office for a preventive visit. She is a nonsmoker and has been taking her daily medications as prescribed, including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, high-intensity statin, and aspirin. Her diabetes is well controlled. What else would you consider recommending to decrease this patient’s risk for future CVEs?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality, affecting more than 50% of patients older than 60.² Despite control of risk factors with standard treatment modalities, patients with established CVD remain at high risk for future events, which makes elucidating and targeting other causative pathways essential.³

Inflammation has been identified as a key player in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and its downstream effects, with increased inflammatory markers correlating with increased risk for CVEs.⁴ Due to these findings, anti-inflammatory treatments have been under investigation as agents to further reduce risk for CVEs. In 1 such trial, the Canakinumab Antiinflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS), patients with MI and elevated C-reactive protein levels treated with the interleukin-1 beta inhibitor canakinumab showed reduced risk for future CVEs compared to those receiving placebo.⁵ However, due to canakinumab’s high cost, inconvenient subcutaneous administration, and increased incidence of fatal infections, other agents are under investigation.

Colchicine is a potent anti-inflammatory agent, with approval in the United States for treatment of gout and familial Mediterranean fever. It works broadly to reduce inflammation by disrupting tubulin polymerization.^6,7 Colchicine decreases interleukin-1 beta production through inactivation of the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway, which has been associated with the inflammatory component driving atherosclerotic plaque progression and instability.^5,8 Colchicine’s oral administration, relative cost-effectiveness, and safety profile make it an attractive option for potential use in secondary prevention of CVEs.

The Low-Dose Colchicine (LoDoCo) trial, published in 2013, demonstrated a reduction in CVEs in those with CVD taking guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) plus colchicine 0.5 mg/d, compared with those taking GDMT alone.⁹ However, the LoDoCo study enrolled only 532 patients and was not placebo controlled. The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), published in 2019, was a randomized, ­double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that aimed to further evaluate the effects of colchicine on CVEs on a larger scale and to assess its longer-term safety.¹⁰ In this study, the colchicine group had a significantly lower risk of CVEs vs placebo, with a comparable safety profile.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Fewer CVEs occurred when colchicine was added to the regimen

The randomized, multicenter, double-blind Low Dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial evaluated whether colchicine 0.5 mg daily reduces CV death, spontaneous (nonprocedural) MI, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization in patients with chronic CAD (composite primary endpoint). This trial included 5522 patients, ages 35 to 82, in Australia and the Netherlands. Patients were eligible to participate if they had evidence of CAD by invasive coronary angiography, coronary calcium score, or computed tomography angiography, as well as evidence of clinical stability for 6 months. Exclusion criteria included moderate-to-severe renal impairment, severe heart failure, severe valvular disease, or intolerance to colchicine.

Patients (N = 6528) took colchicine 0.5 mg daily as part of a 1-month, open-label run-in phase; 1006 patients stopped taking colchicine during this time. Perceived adverse effects were observed in 611 of these patients, the most common being gastrointestinal (GI) upset (437 patients). After the run-in phase, the remaining 5522 patients were randomized to either the colchicine or placebo group. Both groups continued to receive GDMT for CVD, including antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulants, and hypertensive therapy as indicated. Lipid-lowering therapies were continued in 96.7% of the colchicine group and 96.6% of the placebo group. These patients were then followed for a minimum of 1 year (median duration, 28.6 months).

Continue to: The primary endpoint...

The primary endpoint occurred less frequently in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (6.8% vs 9.6%; P < .001; number needed to treat = 36). The incidence rates for 2 of the individual outcomes in the composite, MI (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93) and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94), were significantly lower in the colchicine group. The other outcomes were no different from placebo.¹

There was a similar incidence of serious adverse events, such as noncardiovascular death, cancer diagnosis, and hospitalization for infection, pneumonia, or GI issues. High-dose statins were used by 3413 patients (61.8%). Myalgia (data collected only from the Netherlands cohort) was reported more commonly in the colchicine group than the placebo group (21.2% vs 18.5%; cumulative incidence ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31). Myotoxic effects were rare in both groups.¹

WHAT’S NEW

RCT supports potential for anti-inflammatory therapy in CAD

This large RCT demonstrated that the addition of daily colchicine reduces CVE risk in patients with known CAD while maintaining a good safety profile.¹

CAVEATS

Watch for potential drug interactions in patients with renal dysfunction

Prescribers should be aware of potential drug interactions, especially in those with renal or hepatic dysfunction, when prescribing colchicine, as it is metabolized through cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) and excreted via the P-glycoprotein transport system, by which many statins are also metabolized and act as a competitive substrate.⁷ In addition, simvastatin, and to a lesser degree atorvastatin, are CYP3A4 inhibitors.

Also of note, the 0.5-mg colchicine tablet is not available in some countries—including the United States, where only 0.6-mg tablets are available. The 0.6-mg dose would likely have the same benefit and similar adverse effect profile but was not included in the study.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

GI tolerability may be an issue

Colchicine is widely available and relatively low in cost, at approximately $32 per month for the 0.6-mg daily tablets. A major limitation is lack of tolerability, as adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain are frequently reported.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 62-year-old woman with a past medical history of type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and remote myocardial infarction (MI) presents to her primary care office for a preventive visit. She is a nonsmoker and has been taking her daily medications as prescribed, including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, high-intensity statin, and aspirin. Her diabetes is well controlled. What else would you consider recommending to decrease this patient’s risk for future CVEs?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality, affecting more than 50% of patients older than 60.² Despite control of risk factors with standard treatment modalities, patients with established CVD remain at high risk for future events, which makes elucidating and targeting other causative pathways essential.³

Inflammation has been identified as a key player in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and its downstream effects, with increased inflammatory markers correlating with increased risk for CVEs.⁴ Due to these findings, anti-inflammatory treatments have been under investigation as agents to further reduce risk for CVEs. In 1 such trial, the Canakinumab Antiinflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS), patients with MI and elevated C-reactive protein levels treated with the interleukin-1 beta inhibitor canakinumab showed reduced risk for future CVEs compared to those receiving placebo.⁵ However, due to canakinumab’s high cost, inconvenient subcutaneous administration, and increased incidence of fatal infections, other agents are under investigation.

Colchicine is a potent anti-inflammatory agent, with approval in the United States for treatment of gout and familial Mediterranean fever. It works broadly to reduce inflammation by disrupting tubulin polymerization.^6,7 Colchicine decreases interleukin-1 beta production through inactivation of the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway, which has been associated with the inflammatory component driving atherosclerotic plaque progression and instability.^5,8 Colchicine’s oral administration, relative cost-effectiveness, and safety profile make it an attractive option for potential use in secondary prevention of CVEs.

The Low-Dose Colchicine (LoDoCo) trial, published in 2013, demonstrated a reduction in CVEs in those with CVD taking guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) plus colchicine 0.5 mg/d, compared with those taking GDMT alone.⁹ However, the LoDoCo study enrolled only 532 patients and was not placebo controlled. The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), published in 2019, was a randomized, ­double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that aimed to further evaluate the effects of colchicine on CVEs on a larger scale and to assess its longer-term safety.¹⁰ In this study, the colchicine group had a significantly lower risk of CVEs vs placebo, with a comparable safety profile.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Fewer CVEs occurred when colchicine was added to the regimen

The randomized, multicenter, double-blind Low Dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial evaluated whether colchicine 0.5 mg daily reduces CV death, spontaneous (nonprocedural) MI, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization in patients with chronic CAD (composite primary endpoint). This trial included 5522 patients, ages 35 to 82, in Australia and the Netherlands. Patients were eligible to participate if they had evidence of CAD by invasive coronary angiography, coronary calcium score, or computed tomography angiography, as well as evidence of clinical stability for 6 months. Exclusion criteria included moderate-to-severe renal impairment, severe heart failure, severe valvular disease, or intolerance to colchicine.

Patients (N = 6528) took colchicine 0.5 mg daily as part of a 1-month, open-label run-in phase; 1006 patients stopped taking colchicine during this time. Perceived adverse effects were observed in 611 of these patients, the most common being gastrointestinal (GI) upset (437 patients). After the run-in phase, the remaining 5522 patients were randomized to either the colchicine or placebo group. Both groups continued to receive GDMT for CVD, including antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulants, and hypertensive therapy as indicated. Lipid-lowering therapies were continued in 96.7% of the colchicine group and 96.6% of the placebo group. These patients were then followed for a minimum of 1 year (median duration, 28.6 months).

Continue to: The primary endpoint...

The primary endpoint occurred less frequently in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (6.8% vs 9.6%; P < .001; number needed to treat = 36). The incidence rates for 2 of the individual outcomes in the composite, MI (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93) and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94), were significantly lower in the colchicine group. The other outcomes were no different from placebo.¹

There was a similar incidence of serious adverse events, such as noncardiovascular death, cancer diagnosis, and hospitalization for infection, pneumonia, or GI issues. High-dose statins were used by 3413 patients (61.8%). Myalgia (data collected only from the Netherlands cohort) was reported more commonly in the colchicine group than the placebo group (21.2% vs 18.5%; cumulative incidence ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31). Myotoxic effects were rare in both groups.¹

WHAT’S NEW

RCT supports potential for anti-inflammatory therapy in CAD

This large RCT demonstrated that the addition of daily colchicine reduces CVE risk in patients with known CAD while maintaining a good safety profile.¹

CAVEATS

Watch for potential drug interactions in patients with renal dysfunction

Prescribers should be aware of potential drug interactions, especially in those with renal or hepatic dysfunction, when prescribing colchicine, as it is metabolized through cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) and excreted via the P-glycoprotein transport system, by which many statins are also metabolized and act as a competitive substrate.⁷ In addition, simvastatin, and to a lesser degree atorvastatin, are CYP3A4 inhibitors.

Also of note, the 0.5-mg colchicine tablet is not available in some countries—including the United States, where only 0.6-mg tablets are available. The 0.6-mg dose would likely have the same benefit and similar adverse effect profile but was not included in the study.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

GI tolerability may be an issue

Colchicine is widely available and relatively low in cost, at approximately $32 per month for the 0.6-mg daily tablets. A major limitation is lack of tolerability, as adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain are frequently reported.

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

The addition of social determinants of health (SDOH) to machine-learning risk-prediction models improved forecasts of in-hospital mortality in Black adults hospitalized for heart failure (HF) but didn’t show similar ability in non-Black patients, in a study based in part on the American Heart Association–sponsored Get with the Guidelines in Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry.

The novel risk-prediction tool bolstered by SDOH at the zip-code level – including household income, number of adults without a high-school degree, poverty and unemployment rates, and other factors – stratified risk more sharply in Black patients than more standard models, including some based on multivariable logistic regression.

“Traditional risk models that exist for heart failure assign lower risks to Black individuals if everything else is held constant,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

“I think that is problematic, because if Black patients are considered lower risk, they may not get appropriate risk-based therapies that are being provided. We wanted to move away from this approach and use a more race-agnostic approach,” said Dr. Pandey, who is senior author on the study published  in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Matthew W. Segar, MD, Texas Heart Institute, Houston.

The training dataset for the prediction model consisted of 123,634 patients hospitalized with HF (mean age, 71 years), of whom 47% were women, enrolled in the GWTG-HF registry from 2010 through 2020.

The machine-learning models showed “excellent performance” when applied to an internal subset cohort of 82,420 patients, with a C statistic of 0.81 for Black patients and 0.82 for non-Black patients, the authors report, and in a real-world cohort of 553,506 patients, with C statistics of 0.74 and 0.75, respectively. The models performed similarly well, they write, in an external validation cohort derived from the ARIC registry, with C statistics of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively.

The machine-learning models’ performance surpassed that of the GWTG-HF risk-score model, C statistics 0.69 for both Black and non-Black patients, and other logistic regression models in which race was a covariate, the authors state.

“We also observed significant race-specific differences in the population-attributable risk of in-hospital mortality associated with the SDOH, with a significantly greater contribution of these parameters to the overall in-hospital mortality risk in Black patients versus non-Black patients,” they write.

For Black patients, five of the SDOH parameters were among the top 20 covariate predictors of in-hospital mortality: mean income level, vacancy and unemployment rates, proportion of the population without a high school degree, and proportion older than 65 years. Together they accounted for 11.6% of population-attributable risk for in-hospital death.

Only one SDOH parameter – percentage of population older than 65 years – made the top 20 for non-Black patients, with a population-attributable risk of 0.5%, the group reports.

“I hope our work spurs future investigations to better understand how social determinants contribute to risk and how they can be incorporated in management of these patients,” Dr. Pandey said.

“I commend the authors for attempting to address SDOH as a potential contributor to some of the differences in outcomes among patients with heart failure,” writes Eldrin F. Lewis, MD, MPH, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif., in an accompanying editorial.

“It is imperative that we use these newer techniques to go beyond simply predicting which groups are at heightened risk and leverage the data to create solutions that will reduce those risks for the individual patient,” Dr. Lewis states.

“We should use these tools to reduce racial and ethnic differences in the operations of health care systems, potential bias in management decisions, and inactivity due to the difficulty in getting guideline-directed medical therapy into the hands of people who may have limited resources with minimal out-of-pocket costs,” he writes.

The models assessed in the current report “set a new bar for risk prediction: Integration of a comprehensive set of demographics, comorbidities, and social determinants with machine learning obviates race and ethnicity in risk prediction,” contend JAMA Cardiology deputy editor Clyde W. Yancy, MD, and associate editor Sadiya S. Khan, MD, both from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, in an accompanying editor’s note.

“This more careful incorporation of individual-level, neighborhood-level, and hospital-level social factors,” they conclude, “is now a candidate template for future risk models.”

Dr. Pandey discloses grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; consulting for or serving as an advisor to Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Rivus, and Roche Diagnostics; receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and research support from the Texas Health Resources Clinical Scholarship, the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program, the National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Segar discloses receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck. Other disclosures are in the report. Dr. Lewis reported no disclosures. Dr. Yancy and Dr. Khan had no relevant disclosures.

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

The addition of social determinants of health (SDOH) to machine-learning risk-prediction models improved forecasts of in-hospital mortality in Black adults hospitalized for heart failure (HF) but didn’t show similar ability in non-Black patients, in a study based in part on the American Heart Association–sponsored Get with the Guidelines in Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry.

The novel risk-prediction tool bolstered by SDOH at the zip-code level – including household income, number of adults without a high-school degree, poverty and unemployment rates, and other factors – stratified risk more sharply in Black patients than more standard models, including some based on multivariable logistic regression.

“Traditional risk models that exist for heart failure assign lower risks to Black individuals if everything else is held constant,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

“I think that is problematic, because if Black patients are considered lower risk, they may not get appropriate risk-based therapies that are being provided. We wanted to move away from this approach and use a more race-agnostic approach,” said Dr. Pandey, who is senior author on the study published  in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Matthew W. Segar, MD, Texas Heart Institute, Houston.

The training dataset for the prediction model consisted of 123,634 patients hospitalized with HF (mean age, 71 years), of whom 47% were women, enrolled in the GWTG-HF registry from 2010 through 2020.

The machine-learning models showed “excellent performance” when applied to an internal subset cohort of 82,420 patients, with a C statistic of 0.81 for Black patients and 0.82 for non-Black patients, the authors report, and in a real-world cohort of 553,506 patients, with C statistics of 0.74 and 0.75, respectively. The models performed similarly well, they write, in an external validation cohort derived from the ARIC registry, with C statistics of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively.

The machine-learning models’ performance surpassed that of the GWTG-HF risk-score model, C statistics 0.69 for both Black and non-Black patients, and other logistic regression models in which race was a covariate, the authors state.

“We also observed significant race-specific differences in the population-attributable risk of in-hospital mortality associated with the SDOH, with a significantly greater contribution of these parameters to the overall in-hospital mortality risk in Black patients versus non-Black patients,” they write.

For Black patients, five of the SDOH parameters were among the top 20 covariate predictors of in-hospital mortality: mean income level, vacancy and unemployment rates, proportion of the population without a high school degree, and proportion older than 65 years. Together they accounted for 11.6% of population-attributable risk for in-hospital death.

Only one SDOH parameter – percentage of population older than 65 years – made the top 20 for non-Black patients, with a population-attributable risk of 0.5%, the group reports.

“I hope our work spurs future investigations to better understand how social determinants contribute to risk and how they can be incorporated in management of these patients,” Dr. Pandey said.

“I commend the authors for attempting to address SDOH as a potential contributor to some of the differences in outcomes among patients with heart failure,” writes Eldrin F. Lewis, MD, MPH, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif., in an accompanying editorial.

“It is imperative that we use these newer techniques to go beyond simply predicting which groups are at heightened risk and leverage the data to create solutions that will reduce those risks for the individual patient,” Dr. Lewis states.

“We should use these tools to reduce racial and ethnic differences in the operations of health care systems, potential bias in management decisions, and inactivity due to the difficulty in getting guideline-directed medical therapy into the hands of people who may have limited resources with minimal out-of-pocket costs,” he writes.

The models assessed in the current report “set a new bar for risk prediction: Integration of a comprehensive set of demographics, comorbidities, and social determinants with machine learning obviates race and ethnicity in risk prediction,” contend JAMA Cardiology deputy editor Clyde W. Yancy, MD, and associate editor Sadiya S. Khan, MD, both from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, in an accompanying editor’s note.

“This more careful incorporation of individual-level, neighborhood-level, and hospital-level social factors,” they conclude, “is now a candidate template for future risk models.”

Dr. Pandey discloses grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; consulting for or serving as an advisor to Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Rivus, and Roche Diagnostics; receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and research support from the Texas Health Resources Clinical Scholarship, the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program, the National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Segar discloses receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck. Other disclosures are in the report. Dr. Lewis reported no disclosures. Dr. Yancy and Dr. Khan had no relevant disclosures.

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

The addition of social determinants of health (SDOH) to machine-learning risk-prediction models improved forecasts of in-hospital mortality in Black adults hospitalized for heart failure (HF) but didn’t show similar ability in non-Black patients, in a study based in part on the American Heart Association–sponsored Get with the Guidelines in Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry.

The novel risk-prediction tool bolstered by SDOH at the zip-code level – including household income, number of adults without a high-school degree, poverty and unemployment rates, and other factors – stratified risk more sharply in Black patients than more standard models, including some based on multivariable logistic regression.

“Traditional risk models that exist for heart failure assign lower risks to Black individuals if everything else is held constant,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

“I think that is problematic, because if Black patients are considered lower risk, they may not get appropriate risk-based therapies that are being provided. We wanted to move away from this approach and use a more race-agnostic approach,” said Dr. Pandey, who is senior author on the study published  in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Matthew W. Segar, MD, Texas Heart Institute, Houston.

The training dataset for the prediction model consisted of 123,634 patients hospitalized with HF (mean age, 71 years), of whom 47% were women, enrolled in the GWTG-HF registry from 2010 through 2020.

The machine-learning models showed “excellent performance” when applied to an internal subset cohort of 82,420 patients, with a C statistic of 0.81 for Black patients and 0.82 for non-Black patients, the authors report, and in a real-world cohort of 553,506 patients, with C statistics of 0.74 and 0.75, respectively. The models performed similarly well, they write, in an external validation cohort derived from the ARIC registry, with C statistics of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively.

The machine-learning models’ performance surpassed that of the GWTG-HF risk-score model, C statistics 0.69 for both Black and non-Black patients, and other logistic regression models in which race was a covariate, the authors state.

“We also observed significant race-specific differences in the population-attributable risk of in-hospital mortality associated with the SDOH, with a significantly greater contribution of these parameters to the overall in-hospital mortality risk in Black patients versus non-Black patients,” they write.

For Black patients, five of the SDOH parameters were among the top 20 covariate predictors of in-hospital mortality: mean income level, vacancy and unemployment rates, proportion of the population without a high school degree, and proportion older than 65 years. Together they accounted for 11.6% of population-attributable risk for in-hospital death.

Only one SDOH parameter – percentage of population older than 65 years – made the top 20 for non-Black patients, with a population-attributable risk of 0.5%, the group reports.

“I hope our work spurs future investigations to better understand how social determinants contribute to risk and how they can be incorporated in management of these patients,” Dr. Pandey said.

“I commend the authors for attempting to address SDOH as a potential contributor to some of the differences in outcomes among patients with heart failure,” writes Eldrin F. Lewis, MD, MPH, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif., in an accompanying editorial.

“It is imperative that we use these newer techniques to go beyond simply predicting which groups are at heightened risk and leverage the data to create solutions that will reduce those risks for the individual patient,” Dr. Lewis states.

“We should use these tools to reduce racial and ethnic differences in the operations of health care systems, potential bias in management decisions, and inactivity due to the difficulty in getting guideline-directed medical therapy into the hands of people who may have limited resources with minimal out-of-pocket costs,” he writes.

The models assessed in the current report “set a new bar for risk prediction: Integration of a comprehensive set of demographics, comorbidities, and social determinants with machine learning obviates race and ethnicity in risk prediction,” contend JAMA Cardiology deputy editor Clyde W. Yancy, MD, and associate editor Sadiya S. Khan, MD, both from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, in an accompanying editor’s note.

“This more careful incorporation of individual-level, neighborhood-level, and hospital-level social factors,” they conclude, “is now a candidate template for future risk models.”

Dr. Pandey discloses grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; consulting for or serving as an advisor to Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Rivus, and Roche Diagnostics; receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and research support from the Texas Health Resources Clinical Scholarship, the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program, the National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Segar discloses receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck. Other disclosures are in the report. Dr. Lewis reported no disclosures. Dr. Yancy and Dr. Khan had no relevant disclosures.

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

In April 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued new recommendations for the use of aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD).¹ These recommendations differ markedly from those issued in 2016.

First, for individuals ages 40 through 59 years who have a ≥ 10% 10-year risk of CVD, the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin to prevent CVD is selective. This is in contrast to the 2016 recommendation that advised offering aspirin to any individual ages 50 to 59 whose 10-year risk of CVD was ≥ 10% and whose life expectancy was at least 10 years (TABLE).

Second, according to the new recommendations, individuals who are ages 60 years and older should not initiate low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD. Previously, selected individuals ages 60 to 69 could be advised to take low-dose aspirin.

The 2016 recommendations also considered the potential benefit of aspirin for preventing colorectal cancer. The 2022 recommendations are silent on this topic, because the USPSTF now concludes that the evidence is insufficient to form an opinion about it.

Important details to keep in mind

These new recommendations pertain to those without signs or symptoms of CVD or known CVD. They do not apply to the use of aspirin for harm reduction or tertiary prevention in those with known CVD. Moreover, the recommendations address the initiation of aspirin at the suggested dose of 81 mg/d, not the continuation of it by those already using it (more on this later). The tool recommended for calculating 10-year CVD risk is the one developed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) (www.cvriskcalculator.com).

An ongoing controversy. Daily low-dose aspirin for the prevention of CVD has been controversial for decades. The TABLE shows how USPSTF recommendations on this topic have changed from 2009 to the present. In 2009, the recommendations were primarily based on 2 studies; today, they are based on 13 studies and a microsimulation to estimate the benefits and harms of aspirin prophylaxis at different patient ages.² This increase in the quantity of the evidence, as well as the elevation in quality, has led to much more nuanced and conservative recommendations. These new recommendations from the USPSTF align much more closely with those of the ACC and the AHA, differing only on the upper age limit at which aspirin initiation should be discouraged (60 years for the USPSTF, 70 for ACC/AHA).

Advise aspirin use selectively per the USPSTF recommendations

Several issues must be addressed when considering daily aspirin use for those ages 40 through 59 years (C recommendation; see TABLE for grade definitions):

• Risk of bleeding is elevated with past or current peptic ulcer disease, diabetes, smoking, high blood pressure, and the use of anti-inflammatory medications, steroids, and anticoagulants.
• The harms from bleeding complications tend to occur early in the use of aspirin and can include gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke.
• The higher the 10-year CVD risk, the greater the benefit from low-dose aspirin.
• Benefits of aspirin for the prevention of CVD increase with the number of years of use.
• If an individual has been taking low-dose aspirin without complications, a reasonable age to discontinue its use is 75 years because little incremental benefit occurs with use after that age.

Continue to: More on low-dose aspirin benefits and harms

More on low-dose aspirin benefits and harms. What exactly is the absolute benefit and harm from daily low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD? As one might expect, it varies by age. Researchers used a microsimulation model to examine updated clinical data from systematic reviews. Looking at life years gained, the largest benefit was in men with a 10-year CVD risk of 20% and aspirin initiated between the ages of 40 and 49.³ This resulted in 52.4 lifetime years gained per 1000 people.³ The results from a meta-analysis of 11 studies, published in the evidence report, found an absolute reduction in major CVD events of 0.4% (number needed to treat = 250) and an absolute increase in major bleeds of 0.5% (number needed to harm = 200).² There was no reduction found for CVD-related or all-cause deaths.

One reason for the increased caution on using aspirin as primary prevention for CVD is the role that statins now play in reducing CVD risk, a factor not accounted for in the studies assessed. It is unknown if the addition of aspirin to statins is beneficial. Remember that the USPSTF recommends the use of a low- to moderate-dose statin in those ages 40 to 75 years if they have one or more CVD risk factors and a 10-year CVD risk ≥ 10%.⁴

How aspirin use might change. The use of aspirin for CVD prevention is widespread. One analysis estimates that one-third of those ages 50 years and older are using aspirin for CVD prevention, including 45% of those older than 75.⁵ If the recommendations from the USPSTF are widely adopted, there could be a gradual decrease in aspirin use for primary prevention with little or no effect on overall population health. Other interventions such as smoking prevention, weight reduction, high blood pressure control, and targeted use of statins—if more widely used—would contribute to the downward trend in CVD deaths that has occurred over the past several decades, with fewer complications caused by regular aspirin use.

Take-home message

Follow these steps when caring for adults ages 40 years and older who do not have known CVD:

1. Assess their 10-year CVD risk using the ACC/AHA tool. If the risk is ≥ 10%:

• Discuss the use of a low- or ­moderate-dose statin if they are age 75 years or younger.
• Discuss the potential for benefit and harm of low-dose aspirin if they are between the ages of 40 and 59 years.
• Mention to those taking daily low-dose aspirin that it has low benefit if continued after age 75.

2. Perform these interventions:

• Screen for hypertension and high cholesterol.
• Screen for type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes in patients up to age 70 years who are overweight or obese.
• Ask about smoking.
• Measure body mass index.
• Offer preventive interventions when any of these CVD risks are found.

In April 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued new recommendations for the use of aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD).¹ These recommendations differ markedly from those issued in 2016.

First, for individuals ages 40 through 59 years who have a ≥ 10% 10-year risk of CVD, the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin to prevent CVD is selective. This is in contrast to the 2016 recommendation that advised offering aspirin to any individual ages 50 to 59 whose 10-year risk of CVD was ≥ 10% and whose life expectancy was at least 10 years (TABLE).

Second, according to the new recommendations, individuals who are ages 60 years and older should not initiate low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD. Previously, selected individuals ages 60 to 69 could be advised to take low-dose aspirin.

The 2016 recommendations also considered the potential benefit of aspirin for preventing colorectal cancer. The 2022 recommendations are silent on this topic, because the USPSTF now concludes that the evidence is insufficient to form an opinion about it.

Important details to keep in mind

These new recommendations pertain to those without signs or symptoms of CVD or known CVD. They do not apply to the use of aspirin for harm reduction or tertiary prevention in those with known CVD. Moreover, the recommendations address the initiation of aspirin at the suggested dose of 81 mg/d, not the continuation of it by those already using it (more on this later). The tool recommended for calculating 10-year CVD risk is the one developed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) (www.cvriskcalculator.com).

An ongoing controversy. Daily low-dose aspirin for the prevention of CVD has been controversial for decades. The TABLE shows how USPSTF recommendations on this topic have changed from 2009 to the present. In 2009, the recommendations were primarily based on 2 studies; today, they are based on 13 studies and a microsimulation to estimate the benefits and harms of aspirin prophylaxis at different patient ages.² This increase in the quantity of the evidence, as well as the elevation in quality, has led to much more nuanced and conservative recommendations. These new recommendations from the USPSTF align much more closely with those of the ACC and the AHA, differing only on the upper age limit at which aspirin initiation should be discouraged (60 years for the USPSTF, 70 for ACC/AHA).

Advise aspirin use selectively per the USPSTF recommendations

Several issues must be addressed when considering daily aspirin use for those ages 40 through 59 years (C recommendation; see TABLE for grade definitions):

• Risk of bleeding is elevated with past or current peptic ulcer disease, diabetes, smoking, high blood pressure, and the use of anti-inflammatory medications, steroids, and anticoagulants.
• The harms from bleeding complications tend to occur early in the use of aspirin and can include gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke.
• The higher the 10-year CVD risk, the greater the benefit from low-dose aspirin.
• Benefits of aspirin for the prevention of CVD increase with the number of years of use.
• If an individual has been taking low-dose aspirin without complications, a reasonable age to discontinue its use is 75 years because little incremental benefit occurs with use after that age.

Continue to: More on low-dose aspirin benefits and harms

More on low-dose aspirin benefits and harms. What exactly is the absolute benefit and harm from daily low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD? As one might expect, it varies by age. Researchers used a microsimulation model to examine updated clinical data from systematic reviews. Looking at life years gained, the largest benefit was in men with a 10-year CVD risk of 20% and aspirin initiated between the ages of 40 and 49.³ This resulted in 52.4 lifetime years gained per 1000 people.³ The results from a meta-analysis of 11 studies, published in the evidence report, found an absolute reduction in major CVD events of 0.4% (number needed to treat = 250) and an absolute increase in major bleeds of 0.5% (number needed to harm = 200).² There was no reduction found for CVD-related or all-cause deaths.

One reason for the increased caution on using aspirin as primary prevention for CVD is the role that statins now play in reducing CVD risk, a factor not accounted for in the studies assessed. It is unknown if the addition of aspirin to statins is beneficial. Remember that the USPSTF recommends the use of a low- to moderate-dose statin in those ages 40 to 75 years if they have one or more CVD risk factors and a 10-year CVD risk ≥ 10%.⁴

How aspirin use might change. The use of aspirin for CVD prevention is widespread. One analysis estimates that one-third of those ages 50 years and older are using aspirin for CVD prevention, including 45% of those older than 75.⁵ If the recommendations from the USPSTF are widely adopted, there could be a gradual decrease in aspirin use for primary prevention with little or no effect on overall population health. Other interventions such as smoking prevention, weight reduction, high blood pressure control, and targeted use of statins—if more widely used—would contribute to the downward trend in CVD deaths that has occurred over the past several decades, with fewer complications caused by regular aspirin use.

Take-home message

Follow these steps when caring for adults ages 40 years and older who do not have known CVD:

1. Assess their 10-year CVD risk using the ACC/AHA tool. If the risk is ≥ 10%:

• Discuss the use of a low- or ­moderate-dose statin if they are age 75 years or younger.
• Discuss the potential for benefit and harm of low-dose aspirin if they are between the ages of 40 and 59 years.
• Mention to those taking daily low-dose aspirin that it has low benefit if continued after age 75.

2. Perform these interventions:

• Screen for hypertension and high cholesterol.
• Screen for type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes in patients up to age 70 years who are overweight or obese.
• Ask about smoking.
• Measure body mass index.
• Offer preventive interventions when any of these CVD risks are found.

In April 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued new recommendations for the use of aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD).¹ These recommendations differ markedly from those issued in 2016.

First, for individuals ages 40 through 59 years who have a ≥ 10% 10-year risk of CVD, the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin to prevent CVD is selective. This is in contrast to the 2016 recommendation that advised offering aspirin to any individual ages 50 to 59 whose 10-year risk of CVD was ≥ 10% and whose life expectancy was at least 10 years (TABLE).

Second, according to the new recommendations, individuals who are ages 60 years and older should not initiate low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD. Previously, selected individuals ages 60 to 69 could be advised to take low-dose aspirin.

The 2016 recommendations also considered the potential benefit of aspirin for preventing colorectal cancer. The 2022 recommendations are silent on this topic, because the USPSTF now concludes that the evidence is insufficient to form an opinion about it.

Important details to keep in mind

These new recommendations pertain to those without signs or symptoms of CVD or known CVD. They do not apply to the use of aspirin for harm reduction or tertiary prevention in those with known CVD. Moreover, the recommendations address the initiation of aspirin at the suggested dose of 81 mg/d, not the continuation of it by those already using it (more on this later). The tool recommended for calculating 10-year CVD risk is the one developed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) (www.cvriskcalculator.com).

An ongoing controversy. Daily low-dose aspirin for the prevention of CVD has been controversial for decades. The TABLE shows how USPSTF recommendations on this topic have changed from 2009 to the present. In 2009, the recommendations were primarily based on 2 studies; today, they are based on 13 studies and a microsimulation to estimate the benefits and harms of aspirin prophylaxis at different patient ages.² This increase in the quantity of the evidence, as well as the elevation in quality, has led to much more nuanced and conservative recommendations. These new recommendations from the USPSTF align much more closely with those of the ACC and the AHA, differing only on the upper age limit at which aspirin initiation should be discouraged (60 years for the USPSTF, 70 for ACC/AHA).

Advise aspirin use selectively per the USPSTF recommendations

Several issues must be addressed when considering daily aspirin use for those ages 40 through 59 years (C recommendation; see TABLE for grade definitions):

• Risk of bleeding is elevated with past or current peptic ulcer disease, diabetes, smoking, high blood pressure, and the use of anti-inflammatory medications, steroids, and anticoagulants.
• The harms from bleeding complications tend to occur early in the use of aspirin and can include gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke.
• The higher the 10-year CVD risk, the greater the benefit from low-dose aspirin.
• Benefits of aspirin for the prevention of CVD increase with the number of years of use.
• If an individual has been taking low-dose aspirin without complications, a reasonable age to discontinue its use is 75 years because little incremental benefit occurs with use after that age.

Continue to: More on low-dose aspirin benefits and harms

More on low-dose aspirin benefits and harms. What exactly is the absolute benefit and harm from daily low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD? As one might expect, it varies by age. Researchers used a microsimulation model to examine updated clinical data from systematic reviews. Looking at life years gained, the largest benefit was in men with a 10-year CVD risk of 20% and aspirin initiated between the ages of 40 and 49.³ This resulted in 52.4 lifetime years gained per 1000 people.³ The results from a meta-analysis of 11 studies, published in the evidence report, found an absolute reduction in major CVD events of 0.4% (number needed to treat = 250) and an absolute increase in major bleeds of 0.5% (number needed to harm = 200).² There was no reduction found for CVD-related or all-cause deaths.

One reason for the increased caution on using aspirin as primary prevention for CVD is the role that statins now play in reducing CVD risk, a factor not accounted for in the studies assessed. It is unknown if the addition of aspirin to statins is beneficial. Remember that the USPSTF recommends the use of a low- to moderate-dose statin in those ages 40 to 75 years if they have one or more CVD risk factors and a 10-year CVD risk ≥ 10%.⁴

How aspirin use might change. The use of aspirin for CVD prevention is widespread. One analysis estimates that one-third of those ages 50 years and older are using aspirin for CVD prevention, including 45% of those older than 75.⁵ If the recommendations from the USPSTF are widely adopted, there could be a gradual decrease in aspirin use for primary prevention with little or no effect on overall population health. Other interventions such as smoking prevention, weight reduction, high blood pressure control, and targeted use of statins—if more widely used—would contribute to the downward trend in CVD deaths that has occurred over the past several decades, with fewer complications caused by regular aspirin use.

Take-home message

Follow these steps when caring for adults ages 40 years and older who do not have known CVD:

1. Assess their 10-year CVD risk using the ACC/AHA tool. If the risk is ≥ 10%:

• Discuss the use of a low- or ­moderate-dose statin if they are age 75 years or younger.
• Discuss the potential for benefit and harm of low-dose aspirin if they are between the ages of 40 and 59 years.
• Mention to those taking daily low-dose aspirin that it has low benefit if continued after age 75.

2. Perform these interventions:

• Screen for hypertension and high cholesterol.
• Screen for type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes in patients up to age 70 years who are overweight or obese.
• Ask about smoking.
• Measure body mass index.
• Offer preventive interventions when any of these CVD risks are found.