Heart Failure

The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) successfully met the primary endpoint of the phase 3 DAPA-HF trial in patients with heart failure, according to a press release from AstraZeneca.

DAPA-HF is an international, multicenter, parallel group, randomized, double-blind trial in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with or without type 2 diabetes. Patients in the study received either 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo, and the primary outcome was time to a worsening heart failure event or to cardiovascular death. Patients who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant reduction in incidence of cardiovascular death and an increase in time to a heart failure event.

The adverse events reported for dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF matched the established safety profile for the drug, AstraZeneca noted in the press release.

“The benefits of dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF are very impressive, with a substantial reduction in the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospital admission. We hope these exciting new findings will ultimately help reduce the terrible burden of disease caused by heart failure and help improve outcomes for our patients,” said John McMurray, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences at the University of Glasgow.

Another dapagliflozin trial, called DELIVER, is focused on 4,700 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction randomized to dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or placebo. That is due to be completed next year.

The full results from DAPA-HF will be presented at a later date.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) successfully met the primary endpoint of the phase 3 DAPA-HF trial in patients with heart failure, according to a press release from AstraZeneca.

DAPA-HF is an international, multicenter, parallel group, randomized, double-blind trial in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with or without type 2 diabetes. Patients in the study received either 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo, and the primary outcome was time to a worsening heart failure event or to cardiovascular death. Patients who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant reduction in incidence of cardiovascular death and an increase in time to a heart failure event.

The adverse events reported for dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF matched the established safety profile for the drug, AstraZeneca noted in the press release.

“The benefits of dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF are very impressive, with a substantial reduction in the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospital admission. We hope these exciting new findings will ultimately help reduce the terrible burden of disease caused by heart failure and help improve outcomes for our patients,” said John McMurray, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences at the University of Glasgow.

Another dapagliflozin trial, called DELIVER, is focused on 4,700 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction randomized to dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or placebo. That is due to be completed next year.

The full results from DAPA-HF will be presented at a later date.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) successfully met the primary endpoint of the phase 3 DAPA-HF trial in patients with heart failure, according to a press release from AstraZeneca.

DAPA-HF is an international, multicenter, parallel group, randomized, double-blind trial in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with or without type 2 diabetes. Patients in the study received either 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo, and the primary outcome was time to a worsening heart failure event or to cardiovascular death. Patients who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant reduction in incidence of cardiovascular death and an increase in time to a heart failure event.

The adverse events reported for dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF matched the established safety profile for the drug, AstraZeneca noted in the press release.

“The benefits of dapagliflozin in DAPA-HF are very impressive, with a substantial reduction in the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospital admission. We hope these exciting new findings will ultimately help reduce the terrible burden of disease caused by heart failure and help improve outcomes for our patients,” said John McMurray, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences at the University of Glasgow.

Another dapagliflozin trial, called DELIVER, is focused on 4,700 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction randomized to dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or placebo. That is due to be completed next year.

The full results from DAPA-HF will be presented at a later date.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for heart failure and a common comorbidity in heart failure patients. New results from a large cohort study in Asia show that, for people with heart failure, having diabetes is associated with changes to the structure of the heart, lower quality of life, more readmissions to hospital, and higher risk of death.

Jonathan Yap, MBBS, MPH, of the National Heart Centre in Singapore, and colleagues, looked at data from a cohort enrolling 6,167 heart failure patients in 11 Asian countries for the prospective ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden

Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry. The researchers identified 5,028 patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF; 22% women), of whom 40% had type 2 diabetes. They also looked at 1,139 patients in the registry with heart failure and preserved LVEF (51% women), of whom 45% had type 2 disease. Controls without heart failure (n = 985; 9% with diabetes) from the SHOP (Singapore Heart Failure Outcomes and Phenotypes) study were included in the analysis, which was published August 21 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

For both heart failure phenotypes, diabetes was associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, but there was no similar association in patients without diabetes. Dr. Yap and his colleagues reported differences in cardiac remodeling based on heart failure phenotype: The reduced LVEF patients had more eccentric hypertrophy, or dilation, of the left ventricular chamber, whereas the preserved LVEF patients had more concentric hypertrophy, or thickening, of the left ventricular wall.

The researchers also reported that patients with diabetes had lower health-related quality of life scores in both heart failure groups, compared with patients without diabetes, although those in the latter group with preserved LVEF did significantly worse on some quality of life measures. Patients with diabetes had more heart failure rehospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.54; P = .014) and higher 1-year rates of a combined measure of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.41; P = .011). No differences were seen between phenotypes for these outcomes.

Dr. Yap and colleagues noted that this was the first large, multinational study investigating diabetes and heart failure in Asia and that “no prior studies have concomitantly included both HF types or controls without HF from the same population.” They listed among the study’s limitations a lack of uniform screening for diabetes that may have resulted in under-identification of diabetics in the cohort.

The Singapore government, the Biomedical Research Council, Boston Scientific, and Bayer sponsored the study. One coauthor disclosed receiving pharmaceutical industry support.

Source: Yap J et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013114.

Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for heart failure and a common comorbidity in heart failure patients. New results from a large cohort study in Asia show that, for people with heart failure, having diabetes is associated with changes to the structure of the heart, lower quality of life, more readmissions to hospital, and higher risk of death.

Jonathan Yap, MBBS, MPH, of the National Heart Centre in Singapore, and colleagues, looked at data from a cohort enrolling 6,167 heart failure patients in 11 Asian countries for the prospective ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden

Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry. The researchers identified 5,028 patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF; 22% women), of whom 40% had type 2 diabetes. They also looked at 1,139 patients in the registry with heart failure and preserved LVEF (51% women), of whom 45% had type 2 disease. Controls without heart failure (n = 985; 9% with diabetes) from the SHOP (Singapore Heart Failure Outcomes and Phenotypes) study were included in the analysis, which was published August 21 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

For both heart failure phenotypes, diabetes was associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, but there was no similar association in patients without diabetes. Dr. Yap and his colleagues reported differences in cardiac remodeling based on heart failure phenotype: The reduced LVEF patients had more eccentric hypertrophy, or dilation, of the left ventricular chamber, whereas the preserved LVEF patients had more concentric hypertrophy, or thickening, of the left ventricular wall.

The researchers also reported that patients with diabetes had lower health-related quality of life scores in both heart failure groups, compared with patients without diabetes, although those in the latter group with preserved LVEF did significantly worse on some quality of life measures. Patients with diabetes had more heart failure rehospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.54; P = .014) and higher 1-year rates of a combined measure of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.41; P = .011). No differences were seen between phenotypes for these outcomes.

Dr. Yap and colleagues noted that this was the first large, multinational study investigating diabetes and heart failure in Asia and that “no prior studies have concomitantly included both HF types or controls without HF from the same population.” They listed among the study’s limitations a lack of uniform screening for diabetes that may have resulted in under-identification of diabetics in the cohort.

The Singapore government, the Biomedical Research Council, Boston Scientific, and Bayer sponsored the study. One coauthor disclosed receiving pharmaceutical industry support.

Source: Yap J et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013114.

Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for heart failure and a common comorbidity in heart failure patients. New results from a large cohort study in Asia show that, for people with heart failure, having diabetes is associated with changes to the structure of the heart, lower quality of life, more readmissions to hospital, and higher risk of death.

Jonathan Yap, MBBS, MPH, of the National Heart Centre in Singapore, and colleagues, looked at data from a cohort enrolling 6,167 heart failure patients in 11 Asian countries for the prospective ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden

Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry. The researchers identified 5,028 patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF; 22% women), of whom 40% had type 2 diabetes. They also looked at 1,139 patients in the registry with heart failure and preserved LVEF (51% women), of whom 45% had type 2 disease. Controls without heart failure (n = 985; 9% with diabetes) from the SHOP (Singapore Heart Failure Outcomes and Phenotypes) study were included in the analysis, which was published August 21 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

For both heart failure phenotypes, diabetes was associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, but there was no similar association in patients without diabetes. Dr. Yap and his colleagues reported differences in cardiac remodeling based on heart failure phenotype: The reduced LVEF patients had more eccentric hypertrophy, or dilation, of the left ventricular chamber, whereas the preserved LVEF patients had more concentric hypertrophy, or thickening, of the left ventricular wall.

The researchers also reported that patients with diabetes had lower health-related quality of life scores in both heart failure groups, compared with patients without diabetes, although those in the latter group with preserved LVEF did significantly worse on some quality of life measures. Patients with diabetes had more heart failure rehospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.54; P = .014) and higher 1-year rates of a combined measure of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.41; P = .011). No differences were seen between phenotypes for these outcomes.

Dr. Yap and colleagues noted that this was the first large, multinational study investigating diabetes and heart failure in Asia and that “no prior studies have concomitantly included both HF types or controls without HF from the same population.” They listed among the study’s limitations a lack of uniform screening for diabetes that may have resulted in under-identification of diabetics in the cohort.

The Singapore government, the Biomedical Research Council, Boston Scientific, and Bayer sponsored the study. One coauthor disclosed receiving pharmaceutical industry support.

Source: Yap J et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013114.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Barostim Neo System, an electronic carotid sinus baroreceptor stimulator, for advanced heart failure patients who have a regular heart rhythm, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and who are not candidates for cardiac resynchronization.

A tiny, unilateral electrode delivers a pulse that decreases sympathetic but increases parasympathetic tone. The effect is that blood vessels relax and production of stress hormones drops. The device is powered by a small generator implanted under the collarbone.

Approval was based on BeAT-HF, a randomized trial with 408 patients on guideline-directed medical therapy with left ventricular ejection fractions at or below 35% and New York Heart Association class III disease.

At 6 months, 125 patients implanted with the device had improved about 14 points more than controls on a quality of life scale, walked about 60 meters farther in 6 minutes, and were more likely to have improved a functional class or two. The benefits corresponded with a drop in the N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Possible complications include infection, low blood pressure, nerve damage, arterial damage, heart failure exacerbation, stroke, and death. Contraindications include certain nervous system disorders, uncontrolled and symptomatic bradycardia, and atherosclerosis or ulcerative carotid plaques near the implant zone, the FDA said.

The system, from CRVx in Minneapolis, received priority review as a breakthrough device. The agency is requiring a phase 4 investigation of its potential to reduce hospitalizations and prolong life.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Barostim Neo System, an electronic carotid sinus baroreceptor stimulator, for advanced heart failure patients who have a regular heart rhythm, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and who are not candidates for cardiac resynchronization.

A tiny, unilateral electrode delivers a pulse that decreases sympathetic but increases parasympathetic tone. The effect is that blood vessels relax and production of stress hormones drops. The device is powered by a small generator implanted under the collarbone.

Approval was based on BeAT-HF, a randomized trial with 408 patients on guideline-directed medical therapy with left ventricular ejection fractions at or below 35% and New York Heart Association class III disease.

At 6 months, 125 patients implanted with the device had improved about 14 points more than controls on a quality of life scale, walked about 60 meters farther in 6 minutes, and were more likely to have improved a functional class or two. The benefits corresponded with a drop in the N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Possible complications include infection, low blood pressure, nerve damage, arterial damage, heart failure exacerbation, stroke, and death. Contraindications include certain nervous system disorders, uncontrolled and symptomatic bradycardia, and atherosclerosis or ulcerative carotid plaques near the implant zone, the FDA said.

The system, from CRVx in Minneapolis, received priority review as a breakthrough device. The agency is requiring a phase 4 investigation of its potential to reduce hospitalizations and prolong life.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Barostim Neo System, an electronic carotid sinus baroreceptor stimulator, for advanced heart failure patients who have a regular heart rhythm, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and who are not candidates for cardiac resynchronization.

A tiny, unilateral electrode delivers a pulse that decreases sympathetic but increases parasympathetic tone. The effect is that blood vessels relax and production of stress hormones drops. The device is powered by a small generator implanted under the collarbone.

Approval was based on BeAT-HF, a randomized trial with 408 patients on guideline-directed medical therapy with left ventricular ejection fractions at or below 35% and New York Heart Association class III disease.

At 6 months, 125 patients implanted with the device had improved about 14 points more than controls on a quality of life scale, walked about 60 meters farther in 6 minutes, and were more likely to have improved a functional class or two. The benefits corresponded with a drop in the N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Possible complications include infection, low blood pressure, nerve damage, arterial damage, heart failure exacerbation, stroke, and death. Contraindications include certain nervous system disorders, uncontrolled and symptomatic bradycardia, and atherosclerosis or ulcerative carotid plaques near the implant zone, the FDA said.

The system, from CRVx in Minneapolis, received priority review as a breakthrough device. The agency is requiring a phase 4 investigation of its potential to reduce hospitalizations and prolong life.

aotto@mdedge.com

Cardiovascular (CV) adverse events were common in patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma, especially with carfilzomib-based therapy, according to results from the PROTECT study.

sudok1/Getty Images

While prior studies have shown an increased risk for CV toxicities with proteasome inhibitor therapy, detailed descriptions of the events and risk factors have been lacking. “Furthermore, there is no validated protocol to help determine which patients are at highest risk of CV toxicity during therapy, nor is there management guidance for patients who experience a [CV adverse event],” wrote Robert F. Cornell, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The PROTECT (Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety with Proteasome Inhibitor) study was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, between September 2015 and March 2018.

Researchers followed 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who were treated with either bortezomib or carfilzomib for a total duration of 18 months. A total of 65 patients received a carfilzomib-based therapy and 30 patients received a bortezomib-based therapy.

Study patients received a CV assessment at baseline and at the beginning of each treatment cycle for the initial six cycles of proteasome inhibitor therapy. Subsequently, patients were monitored for the development of CV adverse events. CV assessments included ECG, echocardiography, and measurement of other cardiac biomarkers, such as NTproBNP and troponin I or T.

CV toxicities were reported among 5 patients (16.7%) of patients treated with bortezomib and 33 patients (50.7%) treated with carfilzomib (P = .005).

In total, there were 64 CV adverse events reported, most of which were grade 2 or 3, and 56 of which occurred while on carfilzomib-based therapy. For carfilzomib, the most common complications were heart failure (23 cases), followed by grade 3 or 4 hypertension (13 cases). Cardiac chest pain, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome were reported in fewer cases.

The researchers also found that elevated natriuretic peptides that occurred before starting carfilzomib therapy or within the first 3 weeks of carfilzomib therapy were associated with a substantially higher risk of CV adverse events.

Patients who have multiple CV risk factors, and especially patients with a history of CV complications and elevated baseline natriuretic peptides, should be referred for a comprehensive cardiac evaluation, the researchers advised. “Such patients are at highest risk of CV [adverse events] with carfilzomib-based therapy, and optimization of CV therapy seems to improve overall care, allow continuation of potentially lifesaving cancer treatment, and affect severity or development of CV [adverse events],” they wrote.

A key limitation of the study was the lack of standardized treatment regimens. As a result, there was a broad dosing range for carfilzomib, in comparison to bortezomib.

Some authors reported financial relationships with carfilzomib maker Amgen and bortezomib maker Takeda, as well as with other companies.

SOURCE: Cornell RF et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00231.

Cardiovascular (CV) adverse events were common in patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma, especially with carfilzomib-based therapy, according to results from the PROTECT study.

sudok1/Getty Images

While prior studies have shown an increased risk for CV toxicities with proteasome inhibitor therapy, detailed descriptions of the events and risk factors have been lacking. “Furthermore, there is no validated protocol to help determine which patients are at highest risk of CV toxicity during therapy, nor is there management guidance for patients who experience a [CV adverse event],” wrote Robert F. Cornell, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The PROTECT (Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety with Proteasome Inhibitor) study was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, between September 2015 and March 2018.

Researchers followed 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who were treated with either bortezomib or carfilzomib for a total duration of 18 months. A total of 65 patients received a carfilzomib-based therapy and 30 patients received a bortezomib-based therapy.

Study patients received a CV assessment at baseline and at the beginning of each treatment cycle for the initial six cycles of proteasome inhibitor therapy. Subsequently, patients were monitored for the development of CV adverse events. CV assessments included ECG, echocardiography, and measurement of other cardiac biomarkers, such as NTproBNP and troponin I or T.

CV toxicities were reported among 5 patients (16.7%) of patients treated with bortezomib and 33 patients (50.7%) treated with carfilzomib (P = .005).

In total, there were 64 CV adverse events reported, most of which were grade 2 or 3, and 56 of which occurred while on carfilzomib-based therapy. For carfilzomib, the most common complications were heart failure (23 cases), followed by grade 3 or 4 hypertension (13 cases). Cardiac chest pain, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome were reported in fewer cases.

The researchers also found that elevated natriuretic peptides that occurred before starting carfilzomib therapy or within the first 3 weeks of carfilzomib therapy were associated with a substantially higher risk of CV adverse events.

Patients who have multiple CV risk factors, and especially patients with a history of CV complications and elevated baseline natriuretic peptides, should be referred for a comprehensive cardiac evaluation, the researchers advised. “Such patients are at highest risk of CV [adverse events] with carfilzomib-based therapy, and optimization of CV therapy seems to improve overall care, allow continuation of potentially lifesaving cancer treatment, and affect severity or development of CV [adverse events],” they wrote.

A key limitation of the study was the lack of standardized treatment regimens. As a result, there was a broad dosing range for carfilzomib, in comparison to bortezomib.

Some authors reported financial relationships with carfilzomib maker Amgen and bortezomib maker Takeda, as well as with other companies.

SOURCE: Cornell RF et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00231.

Cardiovascular (CV) adverse events were common in patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma, especially with carfilzomib-based therapy, according to results from the PROTECT study.

sudok1/Getty Images

While prior studies have shown an increased risk for CV toxicities with proteasome inhibitor therapy, detailed descriptions of the events and risk factors have been lacking. “Furthermore, there is no validated protocol to help determine which patients are at highest risk of CV toxicity during therapy, nor is there management guidance for patients who experience a [CV adverse event],” wrote Robert F. Cornell, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The PROTECT (Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety with Proteasome Inhibitor) study was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, between September 2015 and March 2018.

Researchers followed 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who were treated with either bortezomib or carfilzomib for a total duration of 18 months. A total of 65 patients received a carfilzomib-based therapy and 30 patients received a bortezomib-based therapy.

Study patients received a CV assessment at baseline and at the beginning of each treatment cycle for the initial six cycles of proteasome inhibitor therapy. Subsequently, patients were monitored for the development of CV adverse events. CV assessments included ECG, echocardiography, and measurement of other cardiac biomarkers, such as NTproBNP and troponin I or T.

CV toxicities were reported among 5 patients (16.7%) of patients treated with bortezomib and 33 patients (50.7%) treated with carfilzomib (P = .005).

In total, there were 64 CV adverse events reported, most of which were grade 2 or 3, and 56 of which occurred while on carfilzomib-based therapy. For carfilzomib, the most common complications were heart failure (23 cases), followed by grade 3 or 4 hypertension (13 cases). Cardiac chest pain, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome were reported in fewer cases.

The researchers also found that elevated natriuretic peptides that occurred before starting carfilzomib therapy or within the first 3 weeks of carfilzomib therapy were associated with a substantially higher risk of CV adverse events.

Patients who have multiple CV risk factors, and especially patients with a history of CV complications and elevated baseline natriuretic peptides, should be referred for a comprehensive cardiac evaluation, the researchers advised. “Such patients are at highest risk of CV [adverse events] with carfilzomib-based therapy, and optimization of CV therapy seems to improve overall care, allow continuation of potentially lifesaving cancer treatment, and affect severity or development of CV [adverse events],” they wrote.

A key limitation of the study was the lack of standardized treatment regimens. As a result, there was a broad dosing range for carfilzomib, in comparison to bortezomib.

Some authors reported financial relationships with carfilzomib maker Amgen and bortezomib maker Takeda, as well as with other companies.

SOURCE: Cornell RF et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00231.

A significant proportion of the increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk seen in people with osteoarthritis could be attributable to NSAIDs, new research has suggested.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Writing in Arthritis & Rheumatology, researchers reported the outcomes of a longitudinal, population-based cohort study of 7,743 individuals with osteoarthritis patients and 23,229 age- and sex-matched controls without osteoarthritis.

“The prevailing hypothesis in the OA to CVD relationship has been that OA patients frequently take NSAIDs to control their pain and inflammation and that this may lead to them developing CVD,” wrote Mohammad Atiquzzaman, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and his coauthors. However they commented that no studies had so far examined this directly in patients with osteoarthritis.

Overall, people with osteoarthritis had a significant 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with controls, after adjustment for factors such body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and socioeconomic status. They also had a 42% higher risk of congestive heart failure, 17% higher risk of ischemic heart disease, and 14% higher risk of stroke.

NSAID use was five times more common among people with osteoarthritis, and NSAIDs alone were associated with a greater than fourfold higher risk of cardiovascular disease, after adjusting for osteoarthritis and other potential confounders.

When the authors performed modeling to break down the effect of osteoarthritis on CVD risk into the direct effect of osteoarthritis itself and the indirect effect mediated by NSAID use, they concluded that 41% of the total effect of osteoarthritis on cardiovascular risk was mediated by NSAIDs. The effect of NSAIDs was particularly pronounced for stroke, in which cases they estimated that the drugs contributed to 64% of the increased in risk, and in ischemic heart disease, in which they contributed to 56% of the increased risk.

Subgroup analysis suggested that conventional NSAIDs were responsible for around 29% of the total increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while selective COX-2 inhibitors, or coxibs, such as celecoxib, lumiracoxib, rofecoxib, and valdecoxib mediated around 21%. For ischemic heart disease, conventional NSAIDs explained around 45% of the increased risk, while selective coxibs explained around 32% of the risk. Similarly, with congestive heart failure and stroke, the proportion of risk mediated by NSAIDs was higher for conventional NSAIDs, compared with coxibs.


The authors noted that while a number of previous studies have found osteoarthritis is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, theirs was the first study to specifically examine the role that NSAIDs play in that increased risk.

However, they noted that their information on NSAID use was gleaned from prescription claims data, which did not include information on over-the-counter NSAID use. Their analysis was also unable to include information on family history of cardiovascular disease, smoking, and physical activity, which are important cardiovascular disease risk factors. They did observe that the rates of obesity were higher among the osteoarthritis group when compared with controls (29% vs. 20%), and hypertension and COPD were also more common among individuals with osteoarthritis.

There was no outside funding for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Atiquzzaman M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41027

A significant proportion of the increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk seen in people with osteoarthritis could be attributable to NSAIDs, new research has suggested.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Writing in Arthritis & Rheumatology, researchers reported the outcomes of a longitudinal, population-based cohort study of 7,743 individuals with osteoarthritis patients and 23,229 age- and sex-matched controls without osteoarthritis.

“The prevailing hypothesis in the OA to CVD relationship has been that OA patients frequently take NSAIDs to control their pain and inflammation and that this may lead to them developing CVD,” wrote Mohammad Atiquzzaman, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and his coauthors. However they commented that no studies had so far examined this directly in patients with osteoarthritis.

Overall, people with osteoarthritis had a significant 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with controls, after adjustment for factors such body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and socioeconomic status. They also had a 42% higher risk of congestive heart failure, 17% higher risk of ischemic heart disease, and 14% higher risk of stroke.

NSAID use was five times more common among people with osteoarthritis, and NSAIDs alone were associated with a greater than fourfold higher risk of cardiovascular disease, after adjusting for osteoarthritis and other potential confounders.

When the authors performed modeling to break down the effect of osteoarthritis on CVD risk into the direct effect of osteoarthritis itself and the indirect effect mediated by NSAID use, they concluded that 41% of the total effect of osteoarthritis on cardiovascular risk was mediated by NSAIDs. The effect of NSAIDs was particularly pronounced for stroke, in which cases they estimated that the drugs contributed to 64% of the increased in risk, and in ischemic heart disease, in which they contributed to 56% of the increased risk.

Subgroup analysis suggested that conventional NSAIDs were responsible for around 29% of the total increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while selective COX-2 inhibitors, or coxibs, such as celecoxib, lumiracoxib, rofecoxib, and valdecoxib mediated around 21%. For ischemic heart disease, conventional NSAIDs explained around 45% of the increased risk, while selective coxibs explained around 32% of the risk. Similarly, with congestive heart failure and stroke, the proportion of risk mediated by NSAIDs was higher for conventional NSAIDs, compared with coxibs.


The authors noted that while a number of previous studies have found osteoarthritis is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, theirs was the first study to specifically examine the role that NSAIDs play in that increased risk.

However, they noted that their information on NSAID use was gleaned from prescription claims data, which did not include information on over-the-counter NSAID use. Their analysis was also unable to include information on family history of cardiovascular disease, smoking, and physical activity, which are important cardiovascular disease risk factors. They did observe that the rates of obesity were higher among the osteoarthritis group when compared with controls (29% vs. 20%), and hypertension and COPD were also more common among individuals with osteoarthritis.

There was no outside funding for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Atiquzzaman M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41027

A significant proportion of the increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk seen in people with osteoarthritis could be attributable to NSAIDs, new research has suggested.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Writing in Arthritis & Rheumatology, researchers reported the outcomes of a longitudinal, population-based cohort study of 7,743 individuals with osteoarthritis patients and 23,229 age- and sex-matched controls without osteoarthritis.

“The prevailing hypothesis in the OA to CVD relationship has been that OA patients frequently take NSAIDs to control their pain and inflammation and that this may lead to them developing CVD,” wrote Mohammad Atiquzzaman, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and his coauthors. However they commented that no studies had so far examined this directly in patients with osteoarthritis.

Overall, people with osteoarthritis had a significant 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with controls, after adjustment for factors such body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and socioeconomic status. They also had a 42% higher risk of congestive heart failure, 17% higher risk of ischemic heart disease, and 14% higher risk of stroke.

NSAID use was five times more common among people with osteoarthritis, and NSAIDs alone were associated with a greater than fourfold higher risk of cardiovascular disease, after adjusting for osteoarthritis and other potential confounders.

When the authors performed modeling to break down the effect of osteoarthritis on CVD risk into the direct effect of osteoarthritis itself and the indirect effect mediated by NSAID use, they concluded that 41% of the total effect of osteoarthritis on cardiovascular risk was mediated by NSAIDs. The effect of NSAIDs was particularly pronounced for stroke, in which cases they estimated that the drugs contributed to 64% of the increased in risk, and in ischemic heart disease, in which they contributed to 56% of the increased risk.

Subgroup analysis suggested that conventional NSAIDs were responsible for around 29% of the total increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while selective COX-2 inhibitors, or coxibs, such as celecoxib, lumiracoxib, rofecoxib, and valdecoxib mediated around 21%. For ischemic heart disease, conventional NSAIDs explained around 45% of the increased risk, while selective coxibs explained around 32% of the risk. Similarly, with congestive heart failure and stroke, the proportion of risk mediated by NSAIDs was higher for conventional NSAIDs, compared with coxibs.


The authors noted that while a number of previous studies have found osteoarthritis is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, theirs was the first study to specifically examine the role that NSAIDs play in that increased risk.

However, they noted that their information on NSAID use was gleaned from prescription claims data, which did not include information on over-the-counter NSAID use. Their analysis was also unable to include information on family history of cardiovascular disease, smoking, and physical activity, which are important cardiovascular disease risk factors. They did observe that the rates of obesity were higher among the osteoarthritis group when compared with controls (29% vs. 20%), and hypertension and COPD were also more common among individuals with osteoarthritis.

There was no outside funding for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Atiquzzaman M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41027

The recently published PIONEER-HF study attempts to move sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) therapy to the inpatient environment to improve patient and physician acceptance of this therapy for patients with heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380;539-48).

When given to outpatients in the PARADIGM-HF trial, the combination was superior to enalapril for reducing the risks of death and hospitalization for heart failure (N Engl J Med 2014;371:993-1004.) Specifically, sacubitril/valsartan decreased mortality by 15% and hospitalization by 21% as an outpatient therapy for patients with systolic heart failure. Nevertheless, there has not been widespread adoption of this approach. It is well known that physicians can be slow to adopt new therapies, but one overriding factor may be the cost of the drug compared to enalapril, one of the first drugs shown to be effective in heart failure therapy (Entresto costs more than $4,000 per year; enalapril costs about $120 per year).

The investigators in the PIONEER-HF study compared Entresto to enalapril over a 2-month period in patients hospitalized with systolic heart failure. To accelerate the trial, the investigators used the proportional change in patients’ N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels as the primary endpoint rather than the traditional outcome of morbidity and mortality. In the short term, no significant clinical benefits were observed, but there was a significant decrease in NT-proBNP of about 30% (P less than .001).

The investigators suggested that this finding extended the previous benefit observed with Entresto during outpatient initiation and could be used as a rationale for initiating Entresto therapy in the hospital. This earlier application of the therapy could make the drug more widely acceptable.

Considerable investigation in BNP measurement has occurred over the last few years, and although it is clear that BNP is elevated in heart failure patients, there is no evidence to confirm that the decrease in BNP is associated with improved outcome. BNP will fall with decrease in ventricular volume, which may have significant physiologic mechanisms but ventricular volume could decrease with fall in blood pressure that may have occurred in this population since hypotension tended to be more frequent with Entresto than with enalapril. The traditional measure of heart failure benefit with beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and aldosterone antagonists in the inpatient and early postdischarge period has depended on clinical outcomes.

Regardless of the physiologic explanation of this fall in BNP, we must pause in our assumptions when a surrogate measure is used to assess clinical benefit as inpatient therapy. The Food and Drug Administration has long given up using surrogate measures as proof of efficacy, and rightly so. Clinical medicine is replete with dubious drug benefits based on surrogate measures. Let’s not forget that only a few years ago suppression of premature ventricular contractions was considered to be a measure of the pharmacologic prevention of sudden death. We have come a long way from that and other clinical missteps to use BNP, an uncertain marker at best of clinical improvement, as a surrogate for the improvement in heart failure.

There is a substantial amount of data supporting the benefit of Entresto in the clinical management of outpatients with heart failure without using the PIONEER-HF trial results as a pretense to initiate therapy when patients are hospitalized. One might suggest that if Novartis is concerned about introducing the drug in the clinical management of heart failure, the company might consider the possibility of decreasing its price.

Dr. Goldstein is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and the division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit.

The recently published PIONEER-HF study attempts to move sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) therapy to the inpatient environment to improve patient and physician acceptance of this therapy for patients with heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380;539-48).

When given to outpatients in the PARADIGM-HF trial, the combination was superior to enalapril for reducing the risks of death and hospitalization for heart failure (N Engl J Med 2014;371:993-1004.) Specifically, sacubitril/valsartan decreased mortality by 15% and hospitalization by 21% as an outpatient therapy for patients with systolic heart failure. Nevertheless, there has not been widespread adoption of this approach. It is well known that physicians can be slow to adopt new therapies, but one overriding factor may be the cost of the drug compared to enalapril, one of the first drugs shown to be effective in heart failure therapy (Entresto costs more than $4,000 per year; enalapril costs about $120 per year).

The investigators in the PIONEER-HF study compared Entresto to enalapril over a 2-month period in patients hospitalized with systolic heart failure. To accelerate the trial, the investigators used the proportional change in patients’ N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels as the primary endpoint rather than the traditional outcome of morbidity and mortality. In the short term, no significant clinical benefits were observed, but there was a significant decrease in NT-proBNP of about 30% (P less than .001).

The investigators suggested that this finding extended the previous benefit observed with Entresto during outpatient initiation and could be used as a rationale for initiating Entresto therapy in the hospital. This earlier application of the therapy could make the drug more widely acceptable.

Considerable investigation in BNP measurement has occurred over the last few years, and although it is clear that BNP is elevated in heart failure patients, there is no evidence to confirm that the decrease in BNP is associated with improved outcome. BNP will fall with decrease in ventricular volume, which may have significant physiologic mechanisms but ventricular volume could decrease with fall in blood pressure that may have occurred in this population since hypotension tended to be more frequent with Entresto than with enalapril. The traditional measure of heart failure benefit with beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and aldosterone antagonists in the inpatient and early postdischarge period has depended on clinical outcomes.

Regardless of the physiologic explanation of this fall in BNP, we must pause in our assumptions when a surrogate measure is used to assess clinical benefit as inpatient therapy. The Food and Drug Administration has long given up using surrogate measures as proof of efficacy, and rightly so. Clinical medicine is replete with dubious drug benefits based on surrogate measures. Let’s not forget that only a few years ago suppression of premature ventricular contractions was considered to be a measure of the pharmacologic prevention of sudden death. We have come a long way from that and other clinical missteps to use BNP, an uncertain marker at best of clinical improvement, as a surrogate for the improvement in heart failure.

There is a substantial amount of data supporting the benefit of Entresto in the clinical management of outpatients with heart failure without using the PIONEER-HF trial results as a pretense to initiate therapy when patients are hospitalized. One might suggest that if Novartis is concerned about introducing the drug in the clinical management of heart failure, the company might consider the possibility of decreasing its price.

Dr. Goldstein is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and the division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit.

The recently published PIONEER-HF study attempts to move sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) therapy to the inpatient environment to improve patient and physician acceptance of this therapy for patients with heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380;539-48).

When given to outpatients in the PARADIGM-HF trial, the combination was superior to enalapril for reducing the risks of death and hospitalization for heart failure (N Engl J Med 2014;371:993-1004.) Specifically, sacubitril/valsartan decreased mortality by 15% and hospitalization by 21% as an outpatient therapy for patients with systolic heart failure. Nevertheless, there has not been widespread adoption of this approach. It is well known that physicians can be slow to adopt new therapies, but one overriding factor may be the cost of the drug compared to enalapril, one of the first drugs shown to be effective in heart failure therapy (Entresto costs more than $4,000 per year; enalapril costs about $120 per year).

The investigators in the PIONEER-HF study compared Entresto to enalapril over a 2-month period in patients hospitalized with systolic heart failure. To accelerate the trial, the investigators used the proportional change in patients’ N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels as the primary endpoint rather than the traditional outcome of morbidity and mortality. In the short term, no significant clinical benefits were observed, but there was a significant decrease in NT-proBNP of about 30% (P less than .001).

The investigators suggested that this finding extended the previous benefit observed with Entresto during outpatient initiation and could be used as a rationale for initiating Entresto therapy in the hospital. This earlier application of the therapy could make the drug more widely acceptable.

Considerable investigation in BNP measurement has occurred over the last few years, and although it is clear that BNP is elevated in heart failure patients, there is no evidence to confirm that the decrease in BNP is associated with improved outcome. BNP will fall with decrease in ventricular volume, which may have significant physiologic mechanisms but ventricular volume could decrease with fall in blood pressure that may have occurred in this population since hypotension tended to be more frequent with Entresto than with enalapril. The traditional measure of heart failure benefit with beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and aldosterone antagonists in the inpatient and early postdischarge period has depended on clinical outcomes.

Regardless of the physiologic explanation of this fall in BNP, we must pause in our assumptions when a surrogate measure is used to assess clinical benefit as inpatient therapy. The Food and Drug Administration has long given up using surrogate measures as proof of efficacy, and rightly so. Clinical medicine is replete with dubious drug benefits based on surrogate measures. Let’s not forget that only a few years ago suppression of premature ventricular contractions was considered to be a measure of the pharmacologic prevention of sudden death. We have come a long way from that and other clinical missteps to use BNP, an uncertain marker at best of clinical improvement, as a surrogate for the improvement in heart failure.

There is a substantial amount of data supporting the benefit of Entresto in the clinical management of outpatients with heart failure without using the PIONEER-HF trial results as a pretense to initiate therapy when patients are hospitalized. One might suggest that if Novartis is concerned about introducing the drug in the clinical management of heart failure, the company might consider the possibility of decreasing its price.

Dr. Goldstein is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and the division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit.

Turns out the American Heart Association is onto something when it urges people to embrace its “Life’s Simple 7” (LS7) recommendations, a series of strategies designed to boost cardiovascular health. A new European study finds that people who follow the recommendations were more than half as likely to develop heart failure (HF) and that mastering just two of the seven criteria makes a big difference, compared with mastering none at all.

Ivan Mateev/iStockphoto

“Focusing on particular components of the American Heart Association LS7 could be seen as a way to improve cardiovascular health,” wrote the authors of the study, which appears in JACC: Heart Failure.

The LS7 encourages the following strategies:

• Manage blood pressure.
• Control cholesterol.
• Reduce blood sugar.
• Get active.
• Eat better.
• Lose weight.
• Stop smoking.

For the new study, researchers led by Alicia Uijl, MSc, of University College London and University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) retrospectively tracked 37,803 participants in a prospective Dutch study of cancer and nutrition.

The subjects, 75% women, had a mean age of 49 years. The group was much thinner, with a mean body mass index of 25 kg/m², than typical American men and women, whose mean BMIs are 29 and 30, per CDC statistics (Natl Health Stat Report. 2018 Dec;122:1-16)

Researchers gave the subjects an LS7 score (0-14) at baseline from 1993-1997. The score was based on whether they fully (2 points), partially (1) or not at all (0) met each of the LC7 criteria.

Most of the subjects failed to reach the ideal level of healthiness, which was defined as scores 11-14 and was achieved by 23%. The others were in the intermediate group (scores, 9-10 points; 35%) and inadequate group (scores, 0-8; 42%).

Over a median follow-up of 15 years, 2% of participants (690) developed HF. In an adjusted model, subjects in the top two groups (ideal and intermediate) were less likely to develop HF than were those in the lowest group (hazard ratios, 0.45 and 0.53, respectively).

The researchers found that diet, exercise, and cholesterol had lesser impacts on risk of HF than did the other elements. And they discovered that meeting the ideal level for just 2 of the 7 strategies would lower HF risk by 52%, compared with reaching no ideal levels.


What now? The high number of subjects in the lowest category suggests “there is ample room for improvements in healthy lifestyle behavior that may reduce HF in the general population,” the researchers wrote. “Given the robust associations between a healthy lifestyle and reduced incidence of HF, this study provides evidence that prevention of incident HF could be accomplished by implementing healthy lifestyle patterns.”

The study is funded by the European Commission, European Union/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and several other research organizations. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Uijl A et al. JACC: Heart Fail. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.03.009

Turns out the American Heart Association is onto something when it urges people to embrace its “Life’s Simple 7” (LS7) recommendations, a series of strategies designed to boost cardiovascular health. A new European study finds that people who follow the recommendations were more than half as likely to develop heart failure (HF) and that mastering just two of the seven criteria makes a big difference, compared with mastering none at all.

Ivan Mateev/iStockphoto

“Focusing on particular components of the American Heart Association LS7 could be seen as a way to improve cardiovascular health,” wrote the authors of the study, which appears in JACC: Heart Failure.

The LS7 encourages the following strategies:

• Manage blood pressure.
• Control cholesterol.
• Reduce blood sugar.
• Get active.
• Eat better.
• Lose weight.
• Stop smoking.

For the new study, researchers led by Alicia Uijl, MSc, of University College London and University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) retrospectively tracked 37,803 participants in a prospective Dutch study of cancer and nutrition.

The subjects, 75% women, had a mean age of 49 years. The group was much thinner, with a mean body mass index of 25 kg/m², than typical American men and women, whose mean BMIs are 29 and 30, per CDC statistics (Natl Health Stat Report. 2018 Dec;122:1-16)

Researchers gave the subjects an LS7 score (0-14) at baseline from 1993-1997. The score was based on whether they fully (2 points), partially (1) or not at all (0) met each of the LC7 criteria.

Most of the subjects failed to reach the ideal level of healthiness, which was defined as scores 11-14 and was achieved by 23%. The others were in the intermediate group (scores, 9-10 points; 35%) and inadequate group (scores, 0-8; 42%).

Over a median follow-up of 15 years, 2% of participants (690) developed HF. In an adjusted model, subjects in the top two groups (ideal and intermediate) were less likely to develop HF than were those in the lowest group (hazard ratios, 0.45 and 0.53, respectively).

The researchers found that diet, exercise, and cholesterol had lesser impacts on risk of HF than did the other elements. And they discovered that meeting the ideal level for just 2 of the 7 strategies would lower HF risk by 52%, compared with reaching no ideal levels.


What now? The high number of subjects in the lowest category suggests “there is ample room for improvements in healthy lifestyle behavior that may reduce HF in the general population,” the researchers wrote. “Given the robust associations between a healthy lifestyle and reduced incidence of HF, this study provides evidence that prevention of incident HF could be accomplished by implementing healthy lifestyle patterns.”

The study is funded by the European Commission, European Union/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and several other research organizations. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Uijl A et al. JACC: Heart Fail. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.03.009

Turns out the American Heart Association is onto something when it urges people to embrace its “Life’s Simple 7” (LS7) recommendations, a series of strategies designed to boost cardiovascular health. A new European study finds that people who follow the recommendations were more than half as likely to develop heart failure (HF) and that mastering just two of the seven criteria makes a big difference, compared with mastering none at all.

Ivan Mateev/iStockphoto

“Focusing on particular components of the American Heart Association LS7 could be seen as a way to improve cardiovascular health,” wrote the authors of the study, which appears in JACC: Heart Failure.

The LS7 encourages the following strategies:

• Manage blood pressure.
• Control cholesterol.
• Reduce blood sugar.
• Get active.
• Eat better.
• Lose weight.
• Stop smoking.

For the new study, researchers led by Alicia Uijl, MSc, of University College London and University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) retrospectively tracked 37,803 participants in a prospective Dutch study of cancer and nutrition.

The subjects, 75% women, had a mean age of 49 years. The group was much thinner, with a mean body mass index of 25 kg/m², than typical American men and women, whose mean BMIs are 29 and 30, per CDC statistics (Natl Health Stat Report. 2018 Dec;122:1-16)

Researchers gave the subjects an LS7 score (0-14) at baseline from 1993-1997. The score was based on whether they fully (2 points), partially (1) or not at all (0) met each of the LC7 criteria.

Most of the subjects failed to reach the ideal level of healthiness, which was defined as scores 11-14 and was achieved by 23%. The others were in the intermediate group (scores, 9-10 points; 35%) and inadequate group (scores, 0-8; 42%).

Over a median follow-up of 15 years, 2% of participants (690) developed HF. In an adjusted model, subjects in the top two groups (ideal and intermediate) were less likely to develop HF than were those in the lowest group (hazard ratios, 0.45 and 0.53, respectively).

The researchers found that diet, exercise, and cholesterol had lesser impacts on risk of HF than did the other elements. And they discovered that meeting the ideal level for just 2 of the 7 strategies would lower HF risk by 52%, compared with reaching no ideal levels.


What now? The high number of subjects in the lowest category suggests “there is ample room for improvements in healthy lifestyle behavior that may reduce HF in the general population,” the researchers wrote. “Given the robust associations between a healthy lifestyle and reduced incidence of HF, this study provides evidence that prevention of incident HF could be accomplished by implementing healthy lifestyle patterns.”

The study is funded by the European Commission, European Union/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and several other research organizations. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Uijl A et al. JACC: Heart Fail. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.03.009

Higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid, a type of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, were associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure in a large, multi-ethnic cohort of adults in the United States.

Despite the potential benefits of omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) for heart health, their use has been controversial, although data in a mouse model showed that dietary EPA was protective against heart failure, wrote Robert C. Block, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To examine the impact of EPA on heart failure in humans, the researchers used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a longitudinal cohort study of U.S. adults, including those who are African American, Hispanic, Asian, and white.

The researchers included 6,562 MESA participants aged 45-84 years from six communities. Participants underwent a baseline exam between July 2000 and July 2002 that included phospholipid measurements used to identify plasma EPA percentage, and they completed study visits approximately every other year for a median follow-up of 13 years.

A total of 292 heart failure events occurred during the follow-up period: 128 with reduced ejection fraction (EF less than 45%), 110 with preserved ejection fraction (EF at least 45%), and 54 with unknown EF status.

The percent EPA for individuals without heart failure was significantly higher compared with those with heart failure (0.76% vs. 0.69%, P =.005). The association remained significant after the researchers controlled for age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, lipids and lipid-lowering drugs, albuminuria, and the lead fatty acid (defined as the fatty acid with the largest in-cluster correlation).


An EPA level greater than 2.5% was considered sufficient to prevent heart failure based on prior definitions. A total of 73% of the participants had insufficient EPA (less than 1.0%), 2.4% had marginal levels (1.0%-2.5%), and 4.5% had sufficient levels. However, given that EPA levels can be easily and safely increased with the consumption of seafood or fish oil capsules, increasing EPA is a feasible heart failure prevention strategy, the researchers said.

The study included 2,532 white, 1,794 black, 1,442 Hispanic, and 794 Chinese participants. Overall, the fewest Hispanic participants met the criteria for sufficient EPA (1.4%), followed by black (4.4%), white (4.9%), and Chinese participants (9.8%).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including relatively few participants with preserved ejection fractions and sufficient EPA levels, as well as the inability to account for changes in omega-3 levels and other risk factors over time, the researchers noted.

“We consider this study to strongly determine a benefit of EPA exists, but insufficient to determine whether a threshold for %EPA exists near 3%,” they said. They proposed a follow-up study including individuals with higher levels of EPA to better detect a protective effect.

Lead author Dr. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received honoraria from Amarin Pharmaceuticals. The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid, a type of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, were associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure in a large, multi-ethnic cohort of adults in the United States.

Despite the potential benefits of omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) for heart health, their use has been controversial, although data in a mouse model showed that dietary EPA was protective against heart failure, wrote Robert C. Block, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To examine the impact of EPA on heart failure in humans, the researchers used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a longitudinal cohort study of U.S. adults, including those who are African American, Hispanic, Asian, and white.

The researchers included 6,562 MESA participants aged 45-84 years from six communities. Participants underwent a baseline exam between July 2000 and July 2002 that included phospholipid measurements used to identify plasma EPA percentage, and they completed study visits approximately every other year for a median follow-up of 13 years.

A total of 292 heart failure events occurred during the follow-up period: 128 with reduced ejection fraction (EF less than 45%), 110 with preserved ejection fraction (EF at least 45%), and 54 with unknown EF status.

The percent EPA for individuals without heart failure was significantly higher compared with those with heart failure (0.76% vs. 0.69%, P =.005). The association remained significant after the researchers controlled for age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, lipids and lipid-lowering drugs, albuminuria, and the lead fatty acid (defined as the fatty acid with the largest in-cluster correlation).


An EPA level greater than 2.5% was considered sufficient to prevent heart failure based on prior definitions. A total of 73% of the participants had insufficient EPA (less than 1.0%), 2.4% had marginal levels (1.0%-2.5%), and 4.5% had sufficient levels. However, given that EPA levels can be easily and safely increased with the consumption of seafood or fish oil capsules, increasing EPA is a feasible heart failure prevention strategy, the researchers said.

The study included 2,532 white, 1,794 black, 1,442 Hispanic, and 794 Chinese participants. Overall, the fewest Hispanic participants met the criteria for sufficient EPA (1.4%), followed by black (4.4%), white (4.9%), and Chinese participants (9.8%).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including relatively few participants with preserved ejection fractions and sufficient EPA levels, as well as the inability to account for changes in omega-3 levels and other risk factors over time, the researchers noted.

“We consider this study to strongly determine a benefit of EPA exists, but insufficient to determine whether a threshold for %EPA exists near 3%,” they said. They proposed a follow-up study including individuals with higher levels of EPA to better detect a protective effect.

Lead author Dr. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received honoraria from Amarin Pharmaceuticals. The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid, a type of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, were associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure in a large, multi-ethnic cohort of adults in the United States.

Despite the potential benefits of omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) for heart health, their use has been controversial, although data in a mouse model showed that dietary EPA was protective against heart failure, wrote Robert C. Block, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To examine the impact of EPA on heart failure in humans, the researchers used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a longitudinal cohort study of U.S. adults, including those who are African American, Hispanic, Asian, and white.

The researchers included 6,562 MESA participants aged 45-84 years from six communities. Participants underwent a baseline exam between July 2000 and July 2002 that included phospholipid measurements used to identify plasma EPA percentage, and they completed study visits approximately every other year for a median follow-up of 13 years.

A total of 292 heart failure events occurred during the follow-up period: 128 with reduced ejection fraction (EF less than 45%), 110 with preserved ejection fraction (EF at least 45%), and 54 with unknown EF status.

The percent EPA for individuals without heart failure was significantly higher compared with those with heart failure (0.76% vs. 0.69%, P =.005). The association remained significant after the researchers controlled for age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, lipids and lipid-lowering drugs, albuminuria, and the lead fatty acid (defined as the fatty acid with the largest in-cluster correlation).


An EPA level greater than 2.5% was considered sufficient to prevent heart failure based on prior definitions. A total of 73% of the participants had insufficient EPA (less than 1.0%), 2.4% had marginal levels (1.0%-2.5%), and 4.5% had sufficient levels. However, given that EPA levels can be easily and safely increased with the consumption of seafood or fish oil capsules, increasing EPA is a feasible heart failure prevention strategy, the researchers said.

The study included 2,532 white, 1,794 black, 1,442 Hispanic, and 794 Chinese participants. Overall, the fewest Hispanic participants met the criteria for sufficient EPA (1.4%), followed by black (4.4%), white (4.9%), and Chinese participants (9.8%).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including relatively few participants with preserved ejection fractions and sufficient EPA levels, as well as the inability to account for changes in omega-3 levels and other risk factors over time, the researchers noted.

“We consider this study to strongly determine a benefit of EPA exists, but insufficient to determine whether a threshold for %EPA exists near 3%,” they said. They proposed a follow-up study including individuals with higher levels of EPA to better detect a protective effect.

Lead author Dr. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received honoraria from Amarin Pharmaceuticals. The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Although earlier research may suggest otherwise, traditional Medicare may actually do a better job of lowering the risk of hospital readmissions than Medicare Advantage, new research suggests.

Copyright Kimberly Pack/Thinkstock

Researchers used what they described as “a novel data linkage” comparing 30-day readmission rates after hospitalization for three major conditions in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program for patients using traditional Medicare versus Medicare Advantage. Those conditions included acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia.

“Our results contrast with those of previous studies that have reported lower or statistically similar readmission rates for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries,” Orestis A. Panagiotou, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In this retrospective cohort study, the researchers linked data from 2011 to 2014 from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS).

The novel linkage found that HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia, the researchers stated. “Plans incorrectly excluded hospitalizations that should have qualified for the readmission measure, and readmission rates were substantially higher among incorrectly excluded hospitalizations.”

Despite this, in analyses using the linkage of HEDIS and MedPAR, “Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates after [acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia] than did traditional Medicare beneficiaries,” the investigators noted.

Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates compared with those in traditional Medicare (16.6% vs. 17.1% for acute MI; 21.4% vs. 21.7% for heart failure; and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). After standardization, Medicare Advantage patients had higher readmission rates, compared with those in traditional Medicare (17.2% vs. 16.9% for acute MI; 21.7% vs. 21.4% for heart failure; and 16.5% vs. 16.0% for pneumonia).

The study authors added that, while unadjusted readmission rates were higher for traditional Medicare beneficiaries, “the direction of the difference reversed after standardization. This occurred because Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have, on average, a lower expected readmission risk [that is, they are ‘healthier’].” Prior studies have documented that Medicare Advantage plans enroll beneficiaries with fewer comorbid conditions and that high-cost beneficiaries switch out of Medicare Advantage and into traditional Medicare.

The researchers suggested four reasons for the differences between the results in this study versus others that compared patients using Medicare with those using Medicare Advantage. These were that the new study included a more comprehensive data set, analyses with comorbid conditions “from a well-validated model applied by CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services],” national data focused on three conditions included in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and patients discharged to places other than skilled nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Authors of an accompanying editorial called for caution to be used in interpreting Medicare Advantage enrollment as causing an increased readmission risk.

“[The] results are sensitive to adjustment for case mix,” wrote Peter Huckfeldt, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in the editorial published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2019 June 25. doi:10.7326/M19-1599) “Using diagnosis codes on hospital claims for case-mix adjustments may be increasingly perilous. ... To our knowledge, there is no recent evidence comparing the intensity of diagnostic coding between clinically similar [traditional Medicare] and [Medicare Advantage] hospital admissions, but if [traditional Medicare] enrollees were coded more intensively than [Medicare Advantage] enrollees, this could lead to [traditional Medicare] enrollees having lower risk-adjusted readmission rares due to coding practices.”

The editorialists added that using a cross-sectional comparison of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients is concerning because a “key challenge in estimating the effect of [Medicare Advantage] is that enrollment is voluntary,” which can lead to a number of analytical concerns.

The researchers concluded that their findings “are concerning because CMS uses HEDIS performance to construct composite quality ratings and assign payment bonuses to Medicare Advantage plans.

“Our study suggests a need for improved monitoring of the accuracy of HEDIS data,” they noted.

The National Institute on Aging provided the primary funding for this study. A number of the authors received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other relevant disclosures were reported.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Panagiotou OA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 25. doi: 10.7326/M18-1795.

Although earlier research may suggest otherwise, traditional Medicare may actually do a better job of lowering the risk of hospital readmissions than Medicare Advantage, new research suggests.

Copyright Kimberly Pack/Thinkstock

Researchers used what they described as “a novel data linkage” comparing 30-day readmission rates after hospitalization for three major conditions in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program for patients using traditional Medicare versus Medicare Advantage. Those conditions included acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia.

“Our results contrast with those of previous studies that have reported lower or statistically similar readmission rates for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries,” Orestis A. Panagiotou, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In this retrospective cohort study, the researchers linked data from 2011 to 2014 from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS).

The novel linkage found that HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia, the researchers stated. “Plans incorrectly excluded hospitalizations that should have qualified for the readmission measure, and readmission rates were substantially higher among incorrectly excluded hospitalizations.”

Despite this, in analyses using the linkage of HEDIS and MedPAR, “Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates after [acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia] than did traditional Medicare beneficiaries,” the investigators noted.

Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates compared with those in traditional Medicare (16.6% vs. 17.1% for acute MI; 21.4% vs. 21.7% for heart failure; and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). After standardization, Medicare Advantage patients had higher readmission rates, compared with those in traditional Medicare (17.2% vs. 16.9% for acute MI; 21.7% vs. 21.4% for heart failure; and 16.5% vs. 16.0% for pneumonia).

The study authors added that, while unadjusted readmission rates were higher for traditional Medicare beneficiaries, “the direction of the difference reversed after standardization. This occurred because Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have, on average, a lower expected readmission risk [that is, they are ‘healthier’].” Prior studies have documented that Medicare Advantage plans enroll beneficiaries with fewer comorbid conditions and that high-cost beneficiaries switch out of Medicare Advantage and into traditional Medicare.

The researchers suggested four reasons for the differences between the results in this study versus others that compared patients using Medicare with those using Medicare Advantage. These were that the new study included a more comprehensive data set, analyses with comorbid conditions “from a well-validated model applied by CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services],” national data focused on three conditions included in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and patients discharged to places other than skilled nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Authors of an accompanying editorial called for caution to be used in interpreting Medicare Advantage enrollment as causing an increased readmission risk.

“[The] results are sensitive to adjustment for case mix,” wrote Peter Huckfeldt, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in the editorial published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2019 June 25. doi:10.7326/M19-1599) “Using diagnosis codes on hospital claims for case-mix adjustments may be increasingly perilous. ... To our knowledge, there is no recent evidence comparing the intensity of diagnostic coding between clinically similar [traditional Medicare] and [Medicare Advantage] hospital admissions, but if [traditional Medicare] enrollees were coded more intensively than [Medicare Advantage] enrollees, this could lead to [traditional Medicare] enrollees having lower risk-adjusted readmission rares due to coding practices.”

The editorialists added that using a cross-sectional comparison of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients is concerning because a “key challenge in estimating the effect of [Medicare Advantage] is that enrollment is voluntary,” which can lead to a number of analytical concerns.

The researchers concluded that their findings “are concerning because CMS uses HEDIS performance to construct composite quality ratings and assign payment bonuses to Medicare Advantage plans.

“Our study suggests a need for improved monitoring of the accuracy of HEDIS data,” they noted.

The National Institute on Aging provided the primary funding for this study. A number of the authors received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other relevant disclosures were reported.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Panagiotou OA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 25. doi: 10.7326/M18-1795.

Although earlier research may suggest otherwise, traditional Medicare may actually do a better job of lowering the risk of hospital readmissions than Medicare Advantage, new research suggests.

Copyright Kimberly Pack/Thinkstock

Researchers used what they described as “a novel data linkage” comparing 30-day readmission rates after hospitalization for three major conditions in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program for patients using traditional Medicare versus Medicare Advantage. Those conditions included acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia.

“Our results contrast with those of previous studies that have reported lower or statistically similar readmission rates for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries,” Orestis A. Panagiotou, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In this retrospective cohort study, the researchers linked data from 2011 to 2014 from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS).

The novel linkage found that HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia, the researchers stated. “Plans incorrectly excluded hospitalizations that should have qualified for the readmission measure, and readmission rates were substantially higher among incorrectly excluded hospitalizations.”

Despite this, in analyses using the linkage of HEDIS and MedPAR, “Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates after [acute MI, heart failure, and pneumonia] than did traditional Medicare beneficiaries,” the investigators noted.

Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates compared with those in traditional Medicare (16.6% vs. 17.1% for acute MI; 21.4% vs. 21.7% for heart failure; and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). After standardization, Medicare Advantage patients had higher readmission rates, compared with those in traditional Medicare (17.2% vs. 16.9% for acute MI; 21.7% vs. 21.4% for heart failure; and 16.5% vs. 16.0% for pneumonia).

The study authors added that, while unadjusted readmission rates were higher for traditional Medicare beneficiaries, “the direction of the difference reversed after standardization. This occurred because Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have, on average, a lower expected readmission risk [that is, they are ‘healthier’].” Prior studies have documented that Medicare Advantage plans enroll beneficiaries with fewer comorbid conditions and that high-cost beneficiaries switch out of Medicare Advantage and into traditional Medicare.

The researchers suggested four reasons for the differences between the results in this study versus others that compared patients using Medicare with those using Medicare Advantage. These were that the new study included a more comprehensive data set, analyses with comorbid conditions “from a well-validated model applied by CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services],” national data focused on three conditions included in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and patients discharged to places other than skilled nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Authors of an accompanying editorial called for caution to be used in interpreting Medicare Advantage enrollment as causing an increased readmission risk.

“[The] results are sensitive to adjustment for case mix,” wrote Peter Huckfeldt, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in the editorial published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2019 June 25. doi:10.7326/M19-1599) “Using diagnosis codes on hospital claims for case-mix adjustments may be increasingly perilous. ... To our knowledge, there is no recent evidence comparing the intensity of diagnostic coding between clinically similar [traditional Medicare] and [Medicare Advantage] hospital admissions, but if [traditional Medicare] enrollees were coded more intensively than [Medicare Advantage] enrollees, this could lead to [traditional Medicare] enrollees having lower risk-adjusted readmission rares due to coding practices.”

The editorialists added that using a cross-sectional comparison of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients is concerning because a “key challenge in estimating the effect of [Medicare Advantage] is that enrollment is voluntary,” which can lead to a number of analytical concerns.

The researchers concluded that their findings “are concerning because CMS uses HEDIS performance to construct composite quality ratings and assign payment bonuses to Medicare Advantage plans.

“Our study suggests a need for improved monitoring of the accuracy of HEDIS data,” they noted.

The National Institute on Aging provided the primary funding for this study. A number of the authors received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other relevant disclosures were reported.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Panagiotou OA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 25. doi: 10.7326/M18-1795.

An increased monocyte count at the time of diagnosis predicts poor outcomes among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other fibrotic diseases, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, systemic sclerosis, and myelofibrosis, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Graham Beards/Wikipedia Creative Commons

The data indicate that “a single threshold value of absolute monocyte counts of 0.95 K/mcL could be used to identify high-risk patients with a fibrotic disease,” said Madeleine K. D. Scott, a researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors. The results “suggest that monocyte count should be incorporated into the clinical assessment” and may “enable more conscientious allocation of scarce resources, including lung transplantations,” they said.

While other published biomarkers – including gene panels and multicytokine signatures – may be expensive and not readily available, “absolute monocyte count is routinely measured as part of a complete blood count, an inexpensive test used in clinical practice worldwide,” the authors said.

Further study of monocytes’ mechanistic role in fibrosis ultimately could point to new treatment approaches.

A retrospective multicenter cohort study

To assess whether immune cells may identify patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis at greater risk of poor outcomes, Ms. Scott and her collaborators conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

They first analyzed transcriptome data from 120 peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which they obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. They used statistical deconvolution to estimate percentages of 13 immune cell types and examined their associations with transplant-free survival. Their discovery analysis found that estimated CD14+ classical monocyte percentages above the mean correlated with shorter transplant-free survival times (hazard ratio, 1.82), but percentages of T cells and B cells did not.

The researchers then validated these results using samples from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in two independent cohorts. In the COMET validation cohort, which included 45 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis whose monocyte counts were measured using flow cytometry, higher monocyte counts were significantly associated with greater risk of disease progression. In the Yale cohort, which included 15 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the 6 patients who were classified as high risk on the basis of a 52-gene signature had more CD14+ monocytes than the 9 low-risk patients did.

In addition, Ms. Scott and her collaborators looked at complete blood count values in the electronic health records of 45,068 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, systemic sclerosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or myelofibrosis in Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart cohorts.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Scott MKD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30508-3.

An increased monocyte count at the time of diagnosis predicts poor outcomes among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other fibrotic diseases, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, systemic sclerosis, and myelofibrosis, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Graham Beards/Wikipedia Creative Commons

The data indicate that “a single threshold value of absolute monocyte counts of 0.95 K/mcL could be used to identify high-risk patients with a fibrotic disease,” said Madeleine K. D. Scott, a researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors. The results “suggest that monocyte count should be incorporated into the clinical assessment” and may “enable more conscientious allocation of scarce resources, including lung transplantations,” they said.

While other published biomarkers – including gene panels and multicytokine signatures – may be expensive and not readily available, “absolute monocyte count is routinely measured as part of a complete blood count, an inexpensive test used in clinical practice worldwide,” the authors said.

Further study of monocytes’ mechanistic role in fibrosis ultimately could point to new treatment approaches.

A retrospective multicenter cohort study

To assess whether immune cells may identify patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis at greater risk of poor outcomes, Ms. Scott and her collaborators conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

They first analyzed transcriptome data from 120 peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which they obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. They used statistical deconvolution to estimate percentages of 13 immune cell types and examined their associations with transplant-free survival. Their discovery analysis found that estimated CD14+ classical monocyte percentages above the mean correlated with shorter transplant-free survival times (hazard ratio, 1.82), but percentages of T cells and B cells did not.

The researchers then validated these results using samples from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in two independent cohorts. In the COMET validation cohort, which included 45 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis whose monocyte counts were measured using flow cytometry, higher monocyte counts were significantly associated with greater risk of disease progression. In the Yale cohort, which included 15 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the 6 patients who were classified as high risk on the basis of a 52-gene signature had more CD14+ monocytes than the 9 low-risk patients did.

In addition, Ms. Scott and her collaborators looked at complete blood count values in the electronic health records of 45,068 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, systemic sclerosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or myelofibrosis in Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart cohorts.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Scott MKD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30508-3.

An increased monocyte count at the time of diagnosis predicts poor outcomes among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other fibrotic diseases, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, systemic sclerosis, and myelofibrosis, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Graham Beards/Wikipedia Creative Commons

The data indicate that “a single threshold value of absolute monocyte counts of 0.95 K/mcL could be used to identify high-risk patients with a fibrotic disease,” said Madeleine K. D. Scott, a researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors. The results “suggest that monocyte count should be incorporated into the clinical assessment” and may “enable more conscientious allocation of scarce resources, including lung transplantations,” they said.

While other published biomarkers – including gene panels and multicytokine signatures – may be expensive and not readily available, “absolute monocyte count is routinely measured as part of a complete blood count, an inexpensive test used in clinical practice worldwide,” the authors said.

Further study of monocytes’ mechanistic role in fibrosis ultimately could point to new treatment approaches.

A retrospective multicenter cohort study

To assess whether immune cells may identify patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis at greater risk of poor outcomes, Ms. Scott and her collaborators conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

They first analyzed transcriptome data from 120 peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which they obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. They used statistical deconvolution to estimate percentages of 13 immune cell types and examined their associations with transplant-free survival. Their discovery analysis found that estimated CD14+ classical monocyte percentages above the mean correlated with shorter transplant-free survival times (hazard ratio, 1.82), but percentages of T cells and B cells did not.

The researchers then validated these results using samples from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in two independent cohorts. In the COMET validation cohort, which included 45 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis whose monocyte counts were measured using flow cytometry, higher monocyte counts were significantly associated with greater risk of disease progression. In the Yale cohort, which included 15 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the 6 patients who were classified as high risk on the basis of a 52-gene signature had more CD14+ monocytes than the 9 low-risk patients did.

In addition, Ms. Scott and her collaborators looked at complete blood count values in the electronic health records of 45,068 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, systemic sclerosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or myelofibrosis in Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart cohorts.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Scott MKD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30508-3.