Heart Failure

The American College of Cardiology has published a new update to its consensus decision pathway for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Chair of the consensus document Writing Committee Thomas M. Maddox, MD, explained to this news organization that this new Decision Pathway provides a practical, streamlined update to frontline clinicians treating patients with heart failure and incorporates evidence from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.

The authors said that the treatment of heart failure can feel overwhelming, and many opportunities to improve patient outcomes are being missed.

“While the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guidelines are wonderful in that they collate all the latest scientific evidence, they don’t speak as much to the practicalities of delivering the care. This is what this Decision Pathway document comes in — it is designed to help frontline clinicians with the practical reality of managing these patients,” Dr. Maddox, who is director of the Healthcare Innovation Lab at BJC HealthCare and the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, commented.

The document, “Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment: Answers to 10 Pivotal Issues About Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction,” was published online on March 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors provided guidance on introducing the numerous evidence-based therapies now available for HFrEF, improving adherence, overcoming treatment barriers, acknowledging contraindications and situations for which few data exist, affording expensive therapies, treating special cohorts, and making the transition to palliative care.

Rather than focusing on extensive text, the document provided practical tips, tables, and figures to make clear the steps, tools, and provisos needed to treat patients with heart failure successfully and expeditiously, they added.

Dr. Maddox reported that there are three main updated areas of advice on the treatment of heart failure in the new document.
 

Valsartan/Sacubitril First Line

One of the major changes involves an elevation for the status of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), Entresto (valsartan/sacubitril).

“It is now clear that this agent is superior to ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of reducing heart failure hospitalization and death, whereas previously it was seen as somewhat equivalent,” Dr. Maddox said. “So, barring a contraindication or another problem with getting the medication, this agent should be one of the first line medicines for all patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.”
 

Dual Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 1/2 (SGLT1/2) Inhibitor

A second update involves the addition of sotagliflozin (a dual inhibitor of both SGLT1 and SGLT2) to the SGLT2 inhibitors as another first-line medication for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

“We now have evidence that both SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitors are beneficial in reducing heart failure hospitalization and death. Previously we only had evidence on SGLT2 inhibitors — dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Sotagliflozin is a newer agent, which inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2, and it turns out that inhibiting both are beneficial in heart failure. So, this gives us a third med in this category,” Dr. Maddox noted.
 

Rapid Initiation of the Four Pillars of Therapy

The document stated that more data have emerged recently to support early and rapid initiation and titration of the “four pillars” of medical therapy in heart failure to maximize the benefits of patient-reported outcomes and reduction in hospitalizations and mortality.

The four pillars of therapy are ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT inhibitor.

As an example, four-class medication initiation reduced the hazard of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure significantly (hazard ratio, 0.38) compared with therapy with just an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker plus a beta-blocker, the document reported.

“What we realize now is that the more quickly we can get patients on all four of these drug classes and escalate to target doses or maximally tolerated doses ideally within 3 months, the better the outcome,” Dr. Maddox said.

“Unfortunately, right now there is very incomplete realization and recognition of that in clinical practice. So, we are trying to highlight the importance of this to encourage clinicians to be more aggressive in making this happen.”

“In all patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, getting them on all four of these medicines as quickly as possible will give the best outcome. We’ve seen evidence in support of this from several broad population trials,” he added. “There are times when they can’t take all four but we should do our best to get there.”
 

Practical Considerations

Dr. Maddox pointed out that the Consensus Document is also trying to account for practical realities and barriers to heart failure treatment.

“When we think about these recommendations — and evidence that getting patients on all these medicines is valuable, we also focus on the fact that there are three major barriers that can get in the way of this and how to think about overcoming those barriers,” he said.

The barriers are comorbidities/side effects of medications, costs of the medicines, and systems of care that are needed to ensure patients can be treated with multiple medications in a timely fashion.

In terms of comorbidities/side effects, Dr. Maddox explained that patients with heart failure are generally older and are likely to have other comorbidities. “The more medicines we give, the more likely we are to run into side effects. So, we have produced some guidance on how to monitor for adverse effects and ways to mitigate these effects so the guideline recommended therapies can be continued without creating new harms.”

He gave the example of mineralocorticoid antagonists, which can sometimes elevate potassium levels, particularly if there is some underlying kidney disease, so clinicians are advised to recommend a low-potassium diet for these patients or the use of potassium binding agents that will also lower the amount of potassium in the blood stream; in this way, patients are able to continue the mineralocorticoid antagonist.

On costs, Dr. Maddox noted that the valsartan/sacubitril combination drug and SGLT inhibitors are new medicines and are expensive.

“They can be prohibitively expensive for patients who have suboptimal pharmacy benefits or who are uninsured.”

The Consensus Document therefore provided some guidance on ways to identify rebate programs, access insurance, and find different pathways to obtaining those drugs at a more reasonable price. It also advocated for policy changes to allow these medicines to be more accessible to more people.
 

More Use of Digital Tools

On the issue of systems of care, Dr. Maddox noted that the preexisting model of delivering care, which almost always involves the patient coming into the doctor’s office, invokes a high burden on both the system and most especially, the patient.

“Patients do not want to come back and forth to the doctor’s office multiple times in a few weeks. This is often a nonstarter, particularly for patients with busy lives,” he commented.

The Consensus Document advised more use of digital tools to provide remote care and contact with patients including sensors that can measure variables such as heart rate and blood pressure and video appointments.

“We are still working out what are the right models of care and how they can be performed safely and how they can be funded. But I think at the end of the day, this will give us more practical ways of getting people on multiple heart failure medicines and monitoring them safely without causing an undue burden for them logistically,” Dr. Maddox said.

He pointed out that there are a record number of medicines now available to treat heart failure, and while this is welcome, many of these patients are also on multiple other medications for other comorbidities as well.

“If you start giving patients seven, eight, or nine different medicines that they have to take every day, sometimes multiple times a day — that’s complicated medically, logistically, and financially. The potential for interaction and complications increases with every additional medication.”

Dr. Maddox also noted that patients have limits on how many medications they will accept. “It really helps if we have an engaged patient who has a good relationship with the care team to try to develop the right treatment plan that is going to meet their needs and give them the best possible health outcomes.”

It can take many visits to get the patient on all these medications and then up-titrate to target doses.

“We try and do a couple of things in each appointment. Often, we tend to start one or maybe two drugs at a time at a relatively low dose to avoid side effects, so we can be talking about 12-16 different encounters in total,” he said.

He recommended making a plan and the use of new technologies to manage each incremental step.
 

A Team Approach

Another issue that is discussed in the document is the use of a healthcare team to manage all the necessary appointments.

“It is no longer practical that one person can be the engineer for all this. It should be a team effort,” Dr. Maddox stated.

Responsibilities can be allocated across physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and even case managers, so that the team can take more of a population approach and develop a system to get patients on the multiple medications as quickly as possible.

“While this can still be quite a big burden for the patient, we need to figure out a system to make this as palatable as possible for them. Practices need to tailor this themselves according to what resources they have,” he added.

While most new patients will be routed to cardiologists to start their treatment plans, once on their initial medications and these have been up titrated to target levels, they should be able to be managed by primary care doctors, who will have the most holistic view of the patient and their other comorbidities, Dr. Maddox advised.

“Following this guidance should lead to more patients receiving evidence-based care which leads to better health outcomes, but delivered in a practical way that fits with their life reality and logistical needs,” he concluded.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology has published a new update to its consensus decision pathway for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Chair of the consensus document Writing Committee Thomas M. Maddox, MD, explained to this news organization that this new Decision Pathway provides a practical, streamlined update to frontline clinicians treating patients with heart failure and incorporates evidence from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.

The authors said that the treatment of heart failure can feel overwhelming, and many opportunities to improve patient outcomes are being missed.

“While the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guidelines are wonderful in that they collate all the latest scientific evidence, they don’t speak as much to the practicalities of delivering the care. This is what this Decision Pathway document comes in — it is designed to help frontline clinicians with the practical reality of managing these patients,” Dr. Maddox, who is director of the Healthcare Innovation Lab at BJC HealthCare and the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, commented.

The document, “Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment: Answers to 10 Pivotal Issues About Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction,” was published online on March 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors provided guidance on introducing the numerous evidence-based therapies now available for HFrEF, improving adherence, overcoming treatment barriers, acknowledging contraindications and situations for which few data exist, affording expensive therapies, treating special cohorts, and making the transition to palliative care.

Rather than focusing on extensive text, the document provided practical tips, tables, and figures to make clear the steps, tools, and provisos needed to treat patients with heart failure successfully and expeditiously, they added.

Dr. Maddox reported that there are three main updated areas of advice on the treatment of heart failure in the new document.
 

Valsartan/Sacubitril First Line

One of the major changes involves an elevation for the status of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), Entresto (valsartan/sacubitril).

“It is now clear that this agent is superior to ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of reducing heart failure hospitalization and death, whereas previously it was seen as somewhat equivalent,” Dr. Maddox said. “So, barring a contraindication or another problem with getting the medication, this agent should be one of the first line medicines for all patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.”
 

Dual Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 1/2 (SGLT1/2) Inhibitor

A second update involves the addition of sotagliflozin (a dual inhibitor of both SGLT1 and SGLT2) to the SGLT2 inhibitors as another first-line medication for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

“We now have evidence that both SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitors are beneficial in reducing heart failure hospitalization and death. Previously we only had evidence on SGLT2 inhibitors — dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Sotagliflozin is a newer agent, which inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2, and it turns out that inhibiting both are beneficial in heart failure. So, this gives us a third med in this category,” Dr. Maddox noted.
 

Rapid Initiation of the Four Pillars of Therapy

The document stated that more data have emerged recently to support early and rapid initiation and titration of the “four pillars” of medical therapy in heart failure to maximize the benefits of patient-reported outcomes and reduction in hospitalizations and mortality.

The four pillars of therapy are ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT inhibitor.

As an example, four-class medication initiation reduced the hazard of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure significantly (hazard ratio, 0.38) compared with therapy with just an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker plus a beta-blocker, the document reported.

“What we realize now is that the more quickly we can get patients on all four of these drug classes and escalate to target doses or maximally tolerated doses ideally within 3 months, the better the outcome,” Dr. Maddox said.

“Unfortunately, right now there is very incomplete realization and recognition of that in clinical practice. So, we are trying to highlight the importance of this to encourage clinicians to be more aggressive in making this happen.”

“In all patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, getting them on all four of these medicines as quickly as possible will give the best outcome. We’ve seen evidence in support of this from several broad population trials,” he added. “There are times when they can’t take all four but we should do our best to get there.”
 

Practical Considerations

Dr. Maddox pointed out that the Consensus Document is also trying to account for practical realities and barriers to heart failure treatment.

“When we think about these recommendations — and evidence that getting patients on all these medicines is valuable, we also focus on the fact that there are three major barriers that can get in the way of this and how to think about overcoming those barriers,” he said.

The barriers are comorbidities/side effects of medications, costs of the medicines, and systems of care that are needed to ensure patients can be treated with multiple medications in a timely fashion.

In terms of comorbidities/side effects, Dr. Maddox explained that patients with heart failure are generally older and are likely to have other comorbidities. “The more medicines we give, the more likely we are to run into side effects. So, we have produced some guidance on how to monitor for adverse effects and ways to mitigate these effects so the guideline recommended therapies can be continued without creating new harms.”

He gave the example of mineralocorticoid antagonists, which can sometimes elevate potassium levels, particularly if there is some underlying kidney disease, so clinicians are advised to recommend a low-potassium diet for these patients or the use of potassium binding agents that will also lower the amount of potassium in the blood stream; in this way, patients are able to continue the mineralocorticoid antagonist.

On costs, Dr. Maddox noted that the valsartan/sacubitril combination drug and SGLT inhibitors are new medicines and are expensive.

“They can be prohibitively expensive for patients who have suboptimal pharmacy benefits or who are uninsured.”

The Consensus Document therefore provided some guidance on ways to identify rebate programs, access insurance, and find different pathways to obtaining those drugs at a more reasonable price. It also advocated for policy changes to allow these medicines to be more accessible to more people.
 

More Use of Digital Tools

On the issue of systems of care, Dr. Maddox noted that the preexisting model of delivering care, which almost always involves the patient coming into the doctor’s office, invokes a high burden on both the system and most especially, the patient.

“Patients do not want to come back and forth to the doctor’s office multiple times in a few weeks. This is often a nonstarter, particularly for patients with busy lives,” he commented.

The Consensus Document advised more use of digital tools to provide remote care and contact with patients including sensors that can measure variables such as heart rate and blood pressure and video appointments.

“We are still working out what are the right models of care and how they can be performed safely and how they can be funded. But I think at the end of the day, this will give us more practical ways of getting people on multiple heart failure medicines and monitoring them safely without causing an undue burden for them logistically,” Dr. Maddox said.

He pointed out that there are a record number of medicines now available to treat heart failure, and while this is welcome, many of these patients are also on multiple other medications for other comorbidities as well.

“If you start giving patients seven, eight, or nine different medicines that they have to take every day, sometimes multiple times a day — that’s complicated medically, logistically, and financially. The potential for interaction and complications increases with every additional medication.”

Dr. Maddox also noted that patients have limits on how many medications they will accept. “It really helps if we have an engaged patient who has a good relationship with the care team to try to develop the right treatment plan that is going to meet their needs and give them the best possible health outcomes.”

It can take many visits to get the patient on all these medications and then up-titrate to target doses.

“We try and do a couple of things in each appointment. Often, we tend to start one or maybe two drugs at a time at a relatively low dose to avoid side effects, so we can be talking about 12-16 different encounters in total,” he said.

He recommended making a plan and the use of new technologies to manage each incremental step.
 

A Team Approach

Another issue that is discussed in the document is the use of a healthcare team to manage all the necessary appointments.

“It is no longer practical that one person can be the engineer for all this. It should be a team effort,” Dr. Maddox stated.

Responsibilities can be allocated across physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and even case managers, so that the team can take more of a population approach and develop a system to get patients on the multiple medications as quickly as possible.

“While this can still be quite a big burden for the patient, we need to figure out a system to make this as palatable as possible for them. Practices need to tailor this themselves according to what resources they have,” he added.

While most new patients will be routed to cardiologists to start their treatment plans, once on their initial medications and these have been up titrated to target levels, they should be able to be managed by primary care doctors, who will have the most holistic view of the patient and their other comorbidities, Dr. Maddox advised.

“Following this guidance should lead to more patients receiving evidence-based care which leads to better health outcomes, but delivered in a practical way that fits with their life reality and logistical needs,” he concluded.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology has published a new update to its consensus decision pathway for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Chair of the consensus document Writing Committee Thomas M. Maddox, MD, explained to this news organization that this new Decision Pathway provides a practical, streamlined update to frontline clinicians treating patients with heart failure and incorporates evidence from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.

The authors said that the treatment of heart failure can feel overwhelming, and many opportunities to improve patient outcomes are being missed.

“While the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guidelines are wonderful in that they collate all the latest scientific evidence, they don’t speak as much to the practicalities of delivering the care. This is what this Decision Pathway document comes in — it is designed to help frontline clinicians with the practical reality of managing these patients,” Dr. Maddox, who is director of the Healthcare Innovation Lab at BJC HealthCare and the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, commented.

The document, “Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment: Answers to 10 Pivotal Issues About Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction,” was published online on March 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors provided guidance on introducing the numerous evidence-based therapies now available for HFrEF, improving adherence, overcoming treatment barriers, acknowledging contraindications and situations for which few data exist, affording expensive therapies, treating special cohorts, and making the transition to palliative care.

Rather than focusing on extensive text, the document provided practical tips, tables, and figures to make clear the steps, tools, and provisos needed to treat patients with heart failure successfully and expeditiously, they added.

Dr. Maddox reported that there are three main updated areas of advice on the treatment of heart failure in the new document.
 

Valsartan/Sacubitril First Line

One of the major changes involves an elevation for the status of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), Entresto (valsartan/sacubitril).

“It is now clear that this agent is superior to ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of reducing heart failure hospitalization and death, whereas previously it was seen as somewhat equivalent,” Dr. Maddox said. “So, barring a contraindication or another problem with getting the medication, this agent should be one of the first line medicines for all patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.”
 

Dual Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 1/2 (SGLT1/2) Inhibitor

A second update involves the addition of sotagliflozin (a dual inhibitor of both SGLT1 and SGLT2) to the SGLT2 inhibitors as another first-line medication for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

“We now have evidence that both SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitors are beneficial in reducing heart failure hospitalization and death. Previously we only had evidence on SGLT2 inhibitors — dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Sotagliflozin is a newer agent, which inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2, and it turns out that inhibiting both are beneficial in heart failure. So, this gives us a third med in this category,” Dr. Maddox noted.
 

Rapid Initiation of the Four Pillars of Therapy

The document stated that more data have emerged recently to support early and rapid initiation and titration of the “four pillars” of medical therapy in heart failure to maximize the benefits of patient-reported outcomes and reduction in hospitalizations and mortality.

The four pillars of therapy are ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT inhibitor.

As an example, four-class medication initiation reduced the hazard of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure significantly (hazard ratio, 0.38) compared with therapy with just an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker plus a beta-blocker, the document reported.

“What we realize now is that the more quickly we can get patients on all four of these drug classes and escalate to target doses or maximally tolerated doses ideally within 3 months, the better the outcome,” Dr. Maddox said.

“Unfortunately, right now there is very incomplete realization and recognition of that in clinical practice. So, we are trying to highlight the importance of this to encourage clinicians to be more aggressive in making this happen.”

“In all patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, getting them on all four of these medicines as quickly as possible will give the best outcome. We’ve seen evidence in support of this from several broad population trials,” he added. “There are times when they can’t take all four but we should do our best to get there.”
 

Practical Considerations

Dr. Maddox pointed out that the Consensus Document is also trying to account for practical realities and barriers to heart failure treatment.

“When we think about these recommendations — and evidence that getting patients on all these medicines is valuable, we also focus on the fact that there are three major barriers that can get in the way of this and how to think about overcoming those barriers,” he said.

The barriers are comorbidities/side effects of medications, costs of the medicines, and systems of care that are needed to ensure patients can be treated with multiple medications in a timely fashion.

In terms of comorbidities/side effects, Dr. Maddox explained that patients with heart failure are generally older and are likely to have other comorbidities. “The more medicines we give, the more likely we are to run into side effects. So, we have produced some guidance on how to monitor for adverse effects and ways to mitigate these effects so the guideline recommended therapies can be continued without creating new harms.”

He gave the example of mineralocorticoid antagonists, which can sometimes elevate potassium levels, particularly if there is some underlying kidney disease, so clinicians are advised to recommend a low-potassium diet for these patients or the use of potassium binding agents that will also lower the amount of potassium in the blood stream; in this way, patients are able to continue the mineralocorticoid antagonist.

On costs, Dr. Maddox noted that the valsartan/sacubitril combination drug and SGLT inhibitors are new medicines and are expensive.

“They can be prohibitively expensive for patients who have suboptimal pharmacy benefits or who are uninsured.”

The Consensus Document therefore provided some guidance on ways to identify rebate programs, access insurance, and find different pathways to obtaining those drugs at a more reasonable price. It also advocated for policy changes to allow these medicines to be more accessible to more people.
 

More Use of Digital Tools

On the issue of systems of care, Dr. Maddox noted that the preexisting model of delivering care, which almost always involves the patient coming into the doctor’s office, invokes a high burden on both the system and most especially, the patient.

“Patients do not want to come back and forth to the doctor’s office multiple times in a few weeks. This is often a nonstarter, particularly for patients with busy lives,” he commented.

The Consensus Document advised more use of digital tools to provide remote care and contact with patients including sensors that can measure variables such as heart rate and blood pressure and video appointments.

“We are still working out what are the right models of care and how they can be performed safely and how they can be funded. But I think at the end of the day, this will give us more practical ways of getting people on multiple heart failure medicines and monitoring them safely without causing an undue burden for them logistically,” Dr. Maddox said.

He pointed out that there are a record number of medicines now available to treat heart failure, and while this is welcome, many of these patients are also on multiple other medications for other comorbidities as well.

“If you start giving patients seven, eight, or nine different medicines that they have to take every day, sometimes multiple times a day — that’s complicated medically, logistically, and financially. The potential for interaction and complications increases with every additional medication.”

Dr. Maddox also noted that patients have limits on how many medications they will accept. “It really helps if we have an engaged patient who has a good relationship with the care team to try to develop the right treatment plan that is going to meet their needs and give them the best possible health outcomes.”

It can take many visits to get the patient on all these medications and then up-titrate to target doses.

“We try and do a couple of things in each appointment. Often, we tend to start one or maybe two drugs at a time at a relatively low dose to avoid side effects, so we can be talking about 12-16 different encounters in total,” he said.

He recommended making a plan and the use of new technologies to manage each incremental step.
 

A Team Approach

Another issue that is discussed in the document is the use of a healthcare team to manage all the necessary appointments.

“It is no longer practical that one person can be the engineer for all this. It should be a team effort,” Dr. Maddox stated.

Responsibilities can be allocated across physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and even case managers, so that the team can take more of a population approach and develop a system to get patients on the multiple medications as quickly as possible.

“While this can still be quite a big burden for the patient, we need to figure out a system to make this as palatable as possible for them. Practices need to tailor this themselves according to what resources they have,” he added.

While most new patients will be routed to cardiologists to start their treatment plans, once on their initial medications and these have been up titrated to target levels, they should be able to be managed by primary care doctors, who will have the most holistic view of the patient and their other comorbidities, Dr. Maddox advised.

“Following this guidance should lead to more patients receiving evidence-based care which leads to better health outcomes, but delivered in a practical way that fits with their life reality and logistical needs,” he concluded.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
• The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
• Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
• After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
• Among SCI survivors with a disability, the risks increased with disability severity, and those with severe disability had the highest risks for MI (aHR, 3.74), HF (aHR, 3.96), and AF (aHR, 3.32).
• Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
• Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
• The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
• Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
• After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
• Among SCI survivors with a disability, the risks increased with disability severity, and those with severe disability had the highest risks for MI (aHR, 3.74), HF (aHR, 3.96), and AF (aHR, 3.32).
• Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
• Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
• The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
• Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
• After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
• Among SCI survivors with a disability, the risks increased with disability severity, and those with severe disability had the highest risks for MI (aHR, 3.74), HF (aHR, 3.96), and AF (aHR, 3.32).
• Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
• Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.

He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.

What medication adjustments would you recommend?

A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime

B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart

C. Begin semaglutide

D. Begin metformin

E. No changes

I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.¹

In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.

I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.

I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.^2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.

The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.⁴ Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.


Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.

2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.

3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.

4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.

An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.

He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.

What medication adjustments would you recommend?

A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime

B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart

C. Begin semaglutide

D. Begin metformin

E. No changes

I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.¹

In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.

I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.

I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.^2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.

The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.⁴ Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.


Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.

2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.

3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.

4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.

An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.

He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.

What medication adjustments would you recommend?

A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime

B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart

C. Begin semaglutide

D. Begin metformin

E. No changes

I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.¹

In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.

I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.

I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.^2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.

The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.⁴ Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.


Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.

2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.

3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.

4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.

A new study added heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) to the growing list of cardiovascular conditions linked to clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which already includes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

But what exactly is CHIP, and what is its potential value in CVD risk and management?

CHIP is an age-related condition marked by clonal expansion of blood stem cells with leukemia-associated mutations in individuals without evidence of hematologic malignancy. CHIP is estimated to affect about 10% of people aged 70 years and older.

First described as a risk factor for hematologic, particularly myeloid, malignant neoplasms, CHIP has recently emerged as a novel CVD risk factor.

CHIP gives rise to proinflammatory immune cells, which can exacerbate ASCVD and may induce or accelerate HF.

“The association between CHIP and HFpEF may be particularly relevant, given that the prevalence of HFpEF is rising due to the progressive aging of the population,” said José J. Fuster, PhD, coordinator for the program on novel mechanisms of atherosclerosis, Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid.

Yet previous studies examining CHIP and HF have either focused on overall HF without distinguishing HF subtypes of preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, or have examined its prognostic significance in the setting of established HF, rather than the development of future HF.

To help fill the gap, Boston-based researchers recently evaluated associations of CHIP and the two most common gene-specific CHIP subtypes (TET2 and DNMT3A CHIP) with incident HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In two racially diverse cohorts with a total of 8090 adults, TET2 CHIP was independently associated with > twofold higher risk of incident HFpEF. By contrast, there were no significant associations of CHIP with incident HFrEF.

“Our study’s fundings suggest that previously described associations between CHIP and future development of heart failure may be driven primarily by HFpEF,” said Michael Honigberg, MD, with the Cardiovascular Research Center and Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In addition, the “clearest signal for an association with HF was observed for TET2 CHIP, the second-most common subtype of CHIP in the population. This finding aligns with a recently published study that reported relative enrichment of TET2 CHIP in a small human HFpEF cohort,” Dr. Honigberg said.

Dr. Fuster said the connection between CHIP and aging “enhances the potential clinical relevance of this study, as CHIP is frequent in elderly individuals and, therefore, may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF in a high proportion of patients.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings need to be validated in other studies.

“In addition, there is a growing recognition that the effects of CHIP are heterogeneous, as mutations in different genes have different effects on cardiovascular and act through different mechanisms. Additional studies will be needed to dissect gene-specific effects in HFpEF. It will also be important to explore whether CHIP influences the clinical progression of the disease,” Dr. Fuster said.

Targeted Treatment?

Dr. Honigberg said the findings may aid in the development of new targeted-treatment strategies for at least the subset of patients with HFpEF.

Based on multiple lines of evidence, the mechanism linking TET2 CHIP to CVD appears to be heightened inflammation, he explained.

For example, in a substudy of the CANTOS trial, patients with atherosclerosis and TET2 CHIP who received canakinumab appeared to derive “outsized benefit” in preventing CV events compared with the overall trial population, Dr. Honigberg said.

“HFpEF is a particularly challenging disease with limited effective therapies. Our findings support the premise that targeted anti-inflammatory therapies may prevent and/or treat HFpEF driven by TET2 CHIP. Of course, this hypothesis will require testing in prospective randomized trials,” Dr. Honigberg said.

“The field of CHIP has developed rapidly, and it is an exciting area of research,” Dr. Fuster added. “However, I personally believe that much work lies ahead before it is ready for prime time in the clinical setting.

“Although the link between CHIP and CVD is solid, we still lack evidence-based interventions to mitigate the elevated CVD risk associated with these mutations. In the absence of effective interventions, the added value of screening for CHIP as a risk factor may be limited,” Dr. Fuster noted.

“For instance, in the setting of HFpEF, we don’t really know whether CHIP mutation carriers may respond favorably to contemporary HF medications or may require new personalized approaches. Additional research and, eventually, clinical trials, are needed,” he added. 

Dr. Honigberg has disclosed relationships with Genentech, Miga Health, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Comanche Biopharma. Dr. Fuster has no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study added heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) to the growing list of cardiovascular conditions linked to clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which already includes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

But what exactly is CHIP, and what is its potential value in CVD risk and management?

CHIP is an age-related condition marked by clonal expansion of blood stem cells with leukemia-associated mutations in individuals without evidence of hematologic malignancy. CHIP is estimated to affect about 10% of people aged 70 years and older.

First described as a risk factor for hematologic, particularly myeloid, malignant neoplasms, CHIP has recently emerged as a novel CVD risk factor.

CHIP gives rise to proinflammatory immune cells, which can exacerbate ASCVD and may induce or accelerate HF.

“The association between CHIP and HFpEF may be particularly relevant, given that the prevalence of HFpEF is rising due to the progressive aging of the population,” said José J. Fuster, PhD, coordinator for the program on novel mechanisms of atherosclerosis, Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid.

Yet previous studies examining CHIP and HF have either focused on overall HF without distinguishing HF subtypes of preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, or have examined its prognostic significance in the setting of established HF, rather than the development of future HF.

To help fill the gap, Boston-based researchers recently evaluated associations of CHIP and the two most common gene-specific CHIP subtypes (TET2 and DNMT3A CHIP) with incident HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In two racially diverse cohorts with a total of 8090 adults, TET2 CHIP was independently associated with > twofold higher risk of incident HFpEF. By contrast, there were no significant associations of CHIP with incident HFrEF.

“Our study’s fundings suggest that previously described associations between CHIP and future development of heart failure may be driven primarily by HFpEF,” said Michael Honigberg, MD, with the Cardiovascular Research Center and Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In addition, the “clearest signal for an association with HF was observed for TET2 CHIP, the second-most common subtype of CHIP in the population. This finding aligns with a recently published study that reported relative enrichment of TET2 CHIP in a small human HFpEF cohort,” Dr. Honigberg said.

Dr. Fuster said the connection between CHIP and aging “enhances the potential clinical relevance of this study, as CHIP is frequent in elderly individuals and, therefore, may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF in a high proportion of patients.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings need to be validated in other studies.

“In addition, there is a growing recognition that the effects of CHIP are heterogeneous, as mutations in different genes have different effects on cardiovascular and act through different mechanisms. Additional studies will be needed to dissect gene-specific effects in HFpEF. It will also be important to explore whether CHIP influences the clinical progression of the disease,” Dr. Fuster said.

Targeted Treatment?

Dr. Honigberg said the findings may aid in the development of new targeted-treatment strategies for at least the subset of patients with HFpEF.

Based on multiple lines of evidence, the mechanism linking TET2 CHIP to CVD appears to be heightened inflammation, he explained.

For example, in a substudy of the CANTOS trial, patients with atherosclerosis and TET2 CHIP who received canakinumab appeared to derive “outsized benefit” in preventing CV events compared with the overall trial population, Dr. Honigberg said.

“HFpEF is a particularly challenging disease with limited effective therapies. Our findings support the premise that targeted anti-inflammatory therapies may prevent and/or treat HFpEF driven by TET2 CHIP. Of course, this hypothesis will require testing in prospective randomized trials,” Dr. Honigberg said.

“The field of CHIP has developed rapidly, and it is an exciting area of research,” Dr. Fuster added. “However, I personally believe that much work lies ahead before it is ready for prime time in the clinical setting.

“Although the link between CHIP and CVD is solid, we still lack evidence-based interventions to mitigate the elevated CVD risk associated with these mutations. In the absence of effective interventions, the added value of screening for CHIP as a risk factor may be limited,” Dr. Fuster noted.

“For instance, in the setting of HFpEF, we don’t really know whether CHIP mutation carriers may respond favorably to contemporary HF medications or may require new personalized approaches. Additional research and, eventually, clinical trials, are needed,” he added. 

Dr. Honigberg has disclosed relationships with Genentech, Miga Health, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Comanche Biopharma. Dr. Fuster has no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study added heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) to the growing list of cardiovascular conditions linked to clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which already includes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

But what exactly is CHIP, and what is its potential value in CVD risk and management?

CHIP is an age-related condition marked by clonal expansion of blood stem cells with leukemia-associated mutations in individuals without evidence of hematologic malignancy. CHIP is estimated to affect about 10% of people aged 70 years and older.

First described as a risk factor for hematologic, particularly myeloid, malignant neoplasms, CHIP has recently emerged as a novel CVD risk factor.

CHIP gives rise to proinflammatory immune cells, which can exacerbate ASCVD and may induce or accelerate HF.

“The association between CHIP and HFpEF may be particularly relevant, given that the prevalence of HFpEF is rising due to the progressive aging of the population,” said José J. Fuster, PhD, coordinator for the program on novel mechanisms of atherosclerosis, Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid.

Yet previous studies examining CHIP and HF have either focused on overall HF without distinguishing HF subtypes of preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, or have examined its prognostic significance in the setting of established HF, rather than the development of future HF.

To help fill the gap, Boston-based researchers recently evaluated associations of CHIP and the two most common gene-specific CHIP subtypes (TET2 and DNMT3A CHIP) with incident HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In two racially diverse cohorts with a total of 8090 adults, TET2 CHIP was independently associated with > twofold higher risk of incident HFpEF. By contrast, there were no significant associations of CHIP with incident HFrEF.

“Our study’s fundings suggest that previously described associations between CHIP and future development of heart failure may be driven primarily by HFpEF,” said Michael Honigberg, MD, with the Cardiovascular Research Center and Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In addition, the “clearest signal for an association with HF was observed for TET2 CHIP, the second-most common subtype of CHIP in the population. This finding aligns with a recently published study that reported relative enrichment of TET2 CHIP in a small human HFpEF cohort,” Dr. Honigberg said.

Dr. Fuster said the connection between CHIP and aging “enhances the potential clinical relevance of this study, as CHIP is frequent in elderly individuals and, therefore, may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF in a high proportion of patients.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings need to be validated in other studies.

“In addition, there is a growing recognition that the effects of CHIP are heterogeneous, as mutations in different genes have different effects on cardiovascular and act through different mechanisms. Additional studies will be needed to dissect gene-specific effects in HFpEF. It will also be important to explore whether CHIP influences the clinical progression of the disease,” Dr. Fuster said.

Targeted Treatment?

Dr. Honigberg said the findings may aid in the development of new targeted-treatment strategies for at least the subset of patients with HFpEF.

Based on multiple lines of evidence, the mechanism linking TET2 CHIP to CVD appears to be heightened inflammation, he explained.

For example, in a substudy of the CANTOS trial, patients with atherosclerosis and TET2 CHIP who received canakinumab appeared to derive “outsized benefit” in preventing CV events compared with the overall trial population, Dr. Honigberg said.

“HFpEF is a particularly challenging disease with limited effective therapies. Our findings support the premise that targeted anti-inflammatory therapies may prevent and/or treat HFpEF driven by TET2 CHIP. Of course, this hypothesis will require testing in prospective randomized trials,” Dr. Honigberg said.

“The field of CHIP has developed rapidly, and it is an exciting area of research,” Dr. Fuster added. “However, I personally believe that much work lies ahead before it is ready for prime time in the clinical setting.

“Although the link between CHIP and CVD is solid, we still lack evidence-based interventions to mitigate the elevated CVD risk associated with these mutations. In the absence of effective interventions, the added value of screening for CHIP as a risk factor may be limited,” Dr. Fuster noted.

“For instance, in the setting of HFpEF, we don’t really know whether CHIP mutation carriers may respond favorably to contemporary HF medications or may require new personalized approaches. Additional research and, eventually, clinical trials, are needed,” he added. 

Dr. Honigberg has disclosed relationships with Genentech, Miga Health, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Comanche Biopharma. Dr. Fuster has no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with heart failure (HF) and depression who receive psychotherapy have the same (almost 50% reduction) in depressive symptoms as those treated with pharmacotherapy, show more improvement in physical-related quality of life, and are less likely to visit emergency departments (EDs), a comparative trial of these interventions found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 416 patients with HF and a confirmed depressive disorder from the Cedars-Sinai Health System, with a mean age of 60.71 years, including nearly 42% women and 30% Black individuals, who were randomized to receive one of two evidence-based treatments for depression in HF: Antidepressant medication management (MEDS) or behavioral activation (BA) psychotherapy. BA therapy promotes engaging in pleasurable and rewarding activities without delving into complex cognitive domains explored in cognitive behavioral therapy, another psychotherapy type.
• All patients received 12 weekly sessions delivered via video or telephone, followed by monthly sessions for 3 months, and were then contacted as needed for an additional 6 months.
• The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9), and secondary outcomes included three measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) — caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality — collected at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Physical and mental HRQOL were measured with the 12-Item Short-Form Medical Outcomes Study (SF-12), HF-specific HRQOL with the 23-item patient-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, caregiver burden with the 26-item Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for HF, morbidity by ED visits, hospital readmissions, and days hospitalized, and mortality data came from medical records and family or caregiver reports, with survival assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, insurance type, recruitment site (inpatient or outpatient), ejection fraction (preserved or reduced), New York Heart Association class, medical history, and medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Depressive symptom severity was reduced at 6 months by nearly 50% for both BA (mean PHQ-9 score, 7.53; P vs baseline < .001) and MEDS (mean PHQ-9 score, 8.09; P vs baseline < .001) participants, with reductions persisting at 12 months and no significant difference between groups.
• Compared with MEDS recipients, those who received BA had slightly higher improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (multivariable mean difference without imputation, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.06-4.20; P = .04), but there were no statistically significant differences between groups in mental HRQOL, HF-specific HRQOL, or caregiver burden at 3, 6, or 12 months.
• Patients who received BA were significantly less likely than those in the MEDS group to have ED visits and spent fewer days in hospital at 3, 6, and 12 months, but there was no significant difference in number of hospital readmissions or in mortality at 3, 6, or 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings of comparable primary effects between BA and MEDS suggest both options are effective and that personal preferences, patient values, and availability of services could inform decisions,” the authors wrote. They noted BA has no pharmacological adverse effects but requires more engagement than drug therapy and might be less accessible.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Waguih William IsHak, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and others. It was published online on January 17, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study had no control group, such as a waiting list, it was impossible to draw conclusions about the natural course of depressive symptoms in HF. However, the authors noted improvements were sustained at 12 months despite substantially diminished contact with intervention teams after 6 months. Researchers were unable to collect data for ED visits, readmissions, and hospital stays outside of California and didn’t assess treatment preference at enrollment, which could have helped inform the association with outcomes and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, paid to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dr. IsHak reported receiving royalties from Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press. No other disclosures were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with heart failure (HF) and depression who receive psychotherapy have the same (almost 50% reduction) in depressive symptoms as those treated with pharmacotherapy, show more improvement in physical-related quality of life, and are less likely to visit emergency departments (EDs), a comparative trial of these interventions found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 416 patients with HF and a confirmed depressive disorder from the Cedars-Sinai Health System, with a mean age of 60.71 years, including nearly 42% women and 30% Black individuals, who were randomized to receive one of two evidence-based treatments for depression in HF: Antidepressant medication management (MEDS) or behavioral activation (BA) psychotherapy. BA therapy promotes engaging in pleasurable and rewarding activities without delving into complex cognitive domains explored in cognitive behavioral therapy, another psychotherapy type.
• All patients received 12 weekly sessions delivered via video or telephone, followed by monthly sessions for 3 months, and were then contacted as needed for an additional 6 months.
• The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9), and secondary outcomes included three measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) — caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality — collected at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Physical and mental HRQOL were measured with the 12-Item Short-Form Medical Outcomes Study (SF-12), HF-specific HRQOL with the 23-item patient-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, caregiver burden with the 26-item Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for HF, morbidity by ED visits, hospital readmissions, and days hospitalized, and mortality data came from medical records and family or caregiver reports, with survival assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, insurance type, recruitment site (inpatient or outpatient), ejection fraction (preserved or reduced), New York Heart Association class, medical history, and medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Depressive symptom severity was reduced at 6 months by nearly 50% for both BA (mean PHQ-9 score, 7.53; P vs baseline < .001) and MEDS (mean PHQ-9 score, 8.09; P vs baseline < .001) participants, with reductions persisting at 12 months and no significant difference between groups.
• Compared with MEDS recipients, those who received BA had slightly higher improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (multivariable mean difference without imputation, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.06-4.20; P = .04), but there were no statistically significant differences between groups in mental HRQOL, HF-specific HRQOL, or caregiver burden at 3, 6, or 12 months.
• Patients who received BA were significantly less likely than those in the MEDS group to have ED visits and spent fewer days in hospital at 3, 6, and 12 months, but there was no significant difference in number of hospital readmissions or in mortality at 3, 6, or 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings of comparable primary effects between BA and MEDS suggest both options are effective and that personal preferences, patient values, and availability of services could inform decisions,” the authors wrote. They noted BA has no pharmacological adverse effects but requires more engagement than drug therapy and might be less accessible.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Waguih William IsHak, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and others. It was published online on January 17, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study had no control group, such as a waiting list, it was impossible to draw conclusions about the natural course of depressive symptoms in HF. However, the authors noted improvements were sustained at 12 months despite substantially diminished contact with intervention teams after 6 months. Researchers were unable to collect data for ED visits, readmissions, and hospital stays outside of California and didn’t assess treatment preference at enrollment, which could have helped inform the association with outcomes and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, paid to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dr. IsHak reported receiving royalties from Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press. No other disclosures were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with heart failure (HF) and depression who receive psychotherapy have the same (almost 50% reduction) in depressive symptoms as those treated with pharmacotherapy, show more improvement in physical-related quality of life, and are less likely to visit emergency departments (EDs), a comparative trial of these interventions found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 416 patients with HF and a confirmed depressive disorder from the Cedars-Sinai Health System, with a mean age of 60.71 years, including nearly 42% women and 30% Black individuals, who were randomized to receive one of two evidence-based treatments for depression in HF: Antidepressant medication management (MEDS) or behavioral activation (BA) psychotherapy. BA therapy promotes engaging in pleasurable and rewarding activities without delving into complex cognitive domains explored in cognitive behavioral therapy, another psychotherapy type.
• All patients received 12 weekly sessions delivered via video or telephone, followed by monthly sessions for 3 months, and were then contacted as needed for an additional 6 months.
• The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9), and secondary outcomes included three measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) — caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality — collected at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Physical and mental HRQOL were measured with the 12-Item Short-Form Medical Outcomes Study (SF-12), HF-specific HRQOL with the 23-item patient-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, caregiver burden with the 26-item Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for HF, morbidity by ED visits, hospital readmissions, and days hospitalized, and mortality data came from medical records and family or caregiver reports, with survival assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, insurance type, recruitment site (inpatient or outpatient), ejection fraction (preserved or reduced), New York Heart Association class, medical history, and medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Depressive symptom severity was reduced at 6 months by nearly 50% for both BA (mean PHQ-9 score, 7.53; P vs baseline < .001) and MEDS (mean PHQ-9 score, 8.09; P vs baseline < .001) participants, with reductions persisting at 12 months and no significant difference between groups.
• Compared with MEDS recipients, those who received BA had slightly higher improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (multivariable mean difference without imputation, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.06-4.20; P = .04), but there were no statistically significant differences between groups in mental HRQOL, HF-specific HRQOL, or caregiver burden at 3, 6, or 12 months.
• Patients who received BA were significantly less likely than those in the MEDS group to have ED visits and spent fewer days in hospital at 3, 6, and 12 months, but there was no significant difference in number of hospital readmissions or in mortality at 3, 6, or 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings of comparable primary effects between BA and MEDS suggest both options are effective and that personal preferences, patient values, and availability of services could inform decisions,” the authors wrote. They noted BA has no pharmacological adverse effects but requires more engagement than drug therapy and might be less accessible.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Waguih William IsHak, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and others. It was published online on January 17, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study had no control group, such as a waiting list, it was impossible to draw conclusions about the natural course of depressive symptoms in HF. However, the authors noted improvements were sustained at 12 months despite substantially diminished contact with intervention teams after 6 months. Researchers were unable to collect data for ED visits, readmissions, and hospital stays outside of California and didn’t assess treatment preference at enrollment, which could have helped inform the association with outcomes and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, paid to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dr. IsHak reported receiving royalties from Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press. No other disclosures were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For smokers, deaths with a cardiovascular or cancer-related cause, or ones that can be attributed to a respiratory disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are significantly more common than for nonsmokers. It is widely recognized that stopping smoking leads to a reduction in mortality risk. To make reliable statements on the timeline of this reduction, researchers analyzed interview data and death rates from 438,015 adult US citizens from 1997 to the end of 2019.

The analyses show that it takes 30 years for the mortality risk of ex-smokers to resemble that of people who never regularly smoked. Blake Thomson, PhD, and Fahrad Islami, MD, PhD, both members of the Department of Surveillance and Health Equity Science of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, published their results as a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

After Smoking Cessation

Overall, 11,860 cardiovascular, 10,935 cancer-related, and 2,060 respiratory-related deaths were considered from over 5 million patient years. Taken from these figures, the mortality risks of continuous smokers were 2.3 times (cardiovascular), 3.4 times (cancer-related), and 13.3 times (respiratory-related) higher than those of continuous nonsmokers.

Within 10 years of stopping smoking, the following occurred:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.47 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 36% compared with smokers).
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 2.13 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 47% compared with smokers).
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 6.35 times, compared with nonsmokers (by 43% compared with smokers).

In the second decade after stopping smoking, the risk dropped even further. The researchers observed the following trends:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.26 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.59 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 3.63 times — each time compared with nonsmokers.

During the third decade after stopping smoking, the risk continued to decrease. The trends were as follows:

• The cardiovascular mortality risk fell by 1.07 times.
• The cancer-related mortality risk fell by 1.34 times.
• The respiratory-related mortality risk fell by 2.34 times, compared with nonsmokers.

30 Years Later

Only after more than 30 years of not smoking was the cardiovascular-related mortality risk 0.96 and, therefore, no longer significant. Compared with nonsmokers, the cancer-related mortality risk was 1.16, and the respiratory-related mortality risk was 1.31.

Therefore, former smokers can reduce their cardiovascular mortality risk by 100%, the cancer-related by 93%, and the respiratory-related mortality risk by 97%.

The result reinforces earlier analyses on the reduction in mortality risks by stopping smoking, with fewer participants. Smokers, therefore, benefit more the longer that they can refrain from using tobacco. “The earlier in life that smoking is given up, the better,” the authors wrote. But even in the first 10 years, the mortality risks examined decreased by a statistically significant 36% (cardiovascular) to 47% (cancer-related).
 

An Underestimation?

One disadvantage of the study is that the participants’ data were collected using personal questionnaires. For this reason, participants may have reported their tobacco consumption as being lower than it was, particularly because these questionnaires are often answered in hindsight, the authors pointed out.

In addition, some of the participants who reported stopping smoking completely may have only reduced their consumption. However, both circumstances would cause the results of the analysis to be even clearer, compared with reality, and therefore better.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.