Hypertension

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Once-daily treatment with the selective aldosterone synthase inhibitor lorundrostat (Mineralys Therapeutics) safely and significantly reduced blood pressure in adults with uncontrolled hypertension in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.

Eight weeks after adding lorundrostat (50 mg or 100 mg once daily) or placebo to background therapy, the medication lowered seated automated office systolic BP significantly more than placebo (−9.6 mm Hg with 50 mg; −7.8 mm Hg with 100 mg), with the greatest effects seen in adults with obesity.

“We need new drugs for treatment-resistant hypertension,” study investigator Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. Lorundrostat represents a “new class” of antihypertensive that “looks to be safe and we’re seeing very large reductions in blood pressure.”

Results of the Target-HTN trial were published online in JAMA to coincide with presentation at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Aldosterone’s contribution ‘vastly underappreciated’

Excess aldosterone production contributes to uncontrolled BP in patients with obesity and other associated diseases, such as obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. 

“Aldosterone’s contribution to uncontrolled hypertension is vastly underappreciated,” first author and study presenter Luke Laffin, MD, also with the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Aldosterone synthase inhibitors are a novel class of BP-lowering medications that decrease aldosterone production. Lorundrostat is one of two such agents in advanced clinical development. The other is baxdrostat (CinCor Pharma/AstraZeneca).

The Target-HTN randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial enrolled 200 adults (mean age, 66 years; 60% women) with uncontrolled hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive medications; 42% of participants were taking three or more antihypertensive medications, 48% were obese and 40% had diabetes.

The study population was divided into two cohorts: an initial cohort of 163 adults with suppressed plasma renin activity at baseline (PRA ≤ 1.0 ng/mL per hour) and elevated plasma aldosterone (≥ 1.0 ng/dL) and a second cohort of 37 adults with PRA greater than 1.0 ng/mL per hour.

Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five doses of lorundrostat in the initial cohort (12.5 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily or 12.5 mg or 25 mg twice daily).

In the second cohort, participants were randomly assigned (1:6) to placebo or lorundrostat 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in automated office systolic BP from baseline to week 8.

Among participants with suppressed PRA, following 8 weeks of treatment, changes in office systolic BP of −14.1, −13.2, and −6.9 mm Hg were observed with 100 mg, 50 mg, and 12.5 mg once-daily lorundrostat, respectively, compared with a change of −4.1 mm Hg with placebo.

Reductions in systolic BP in individuals receiving twice-daily doses of 25 mg and 12.5 mg of lorundrostat were −10.1 and −13.8 mm Hg, respectively.

Among participants without suppressed PRA, lorundrostat 100 mg once daily decreased systolic BP by 11.4 mm Hg, similar to BP reduction in those with suppressed PRA receiving the same dose.

A prespecified subgroup analysis showed that participants with obesity demonstrated greater BP lowering in response to lorundrostat. 

No instances of cortisol insufficiency occurred. Six participants had increases in serum potassium above 6.0 mEq/L (6.0 mmol/L) that corrected with dose reduction or drug discontinuation.

The increase in serum potassium is “expected and manageable,” Dr. Laffin said in an interview. “Anytime you disrupt aldosterone production, you’re going to have to have an increase in serum potassium, but it’s very manageable and not something that is worrisome.”

A phase 2 trial in 300 adults with uncontrolled hypertension is currently underway. The trial will evaluate the BP-lowering effects of lorundrostat, administered on a background of a standardized antihypertensive medication regimen. A larger phase 3 study will start before the end of the year.
 

‘New dawn’ for therapies targeting aldosterone

The author of an editorial in JAMA noted that more 70 years after the first isolation of aldosterone, then called electrocortin, “there is a new dawn for therapies targeting aldosterone.”

“There is now real potential to provide better-targeted treatment for patients in whom aldosterone excess is known to contribute to their clinical condition and influence their clinical outcome, notably those with difficult-to-control hypertension, obesity, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and the many with yet-to-be-diagnosed primary aldosteronism,” said Bryan Williams, MD, University College London.

The trial was funded by Mineralys Therapeutics, which is developing lorundrostat. Dr. Laffin reported that the Cleveland Clinic, his employer, was a study site for the Target-HTN trial and that C5Research, the academic research organization of the Cleveland Clinic, receives payment for services related to other Mineralys clinical trials. Dr. Laffin also reported receipt of personal fees from Medtronic, Lilly, and Crispr Therapeutics, grants from AstraZeneca, and stock options for LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Nissen reported receipt of grants from Mineralys during the conduct of the study and grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Medtronic, grants from MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Williams reported being the unremunerated chair of the steering committee designing a phase 3 trial of the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat for AstraZeneca.

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

Once-daily treatment with the selective aldosterone synthase inhibitor lorundrostat (Mineralys Therapeutics) safely and significantly reduced blood pressure in adults with uncontrolled hypertension in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.

Eight weeks after adding lorundrostat (50 mg or 100 mg once daily) or placebo to background therapy, the medication lowered seated automated office systolic BP significantly more than placebo (−9.6 mm Hg with 50 mg; −7.8 mm Hg with 100 mg), with the greatest effects seen in adults with obesity.

“We need new drugs for treatment-resistant hypertension,” study investigator Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. Lorundrostat represents a “new class” of antihypertensive that “looks to be safe and we’re seeing very large reductions in blood pressure.”

Results of the Target-HTN trial were published online in JAMA to coincide with presentation at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Aldosterone’s contribution ‘vastly underappreciated’

Excess aldosterone production contributes to uncontrolled BP in patients with obesity and other associated diseases, such as obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. 

“Aldosterone’s contribution to uncontrolled hypertension is vastly underappreciated,” first author and study presenter Luke Laffin, MD, also with the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Aldosterone synthase inhibitors are a novel class of BP-lowering medications that decrease aldosterone production. Lorundrostat is one of two such agents in advanced clinical development. The other is baxdrostat (CinCor Pharma/AstraZeneca).

The Target-HTN randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial enrolled 200 adults (mean age, 66 years; 60% women) with uncontrolled hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive medications; 42% of participants were taking three or more antihypertensive medications, 48% were obese and 40% had diabetes.

The study population was divided into two cohorts: an initial cohort of 163 adults with suppressed plasma renin activity at baseline (PRA ≤ 1.0 ng/mL per hour) and elevated plasma aldosterone (≥ 1.0 ng/dL) and a second cohort of 37 adults with PRA greater than 1.0 ng/mL per hour.

Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five doses of lorundrostat in the initial cohort (12.5 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily or 12.5 mg or 25 mg twice daily).

In the second cohort, participants were randomly assigned (1:6) to placebo or lorundrostat 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in automated office systolic BP from baseline to week 8.

Among participants with suppressed PRA, following 8 weeks of treatment, changes in office systolic BP of −14.1, −13.2, and −6.9 mm Hg were observed with 100 mg, 50 mg, and 12.5 mg once-daily lorundrostat, respectively, compared with a change of −4.1 mm Hg with placebo.

Reductions in systolic BP in individuals receiving twice-daily doses of 25 mg and 12.5 mg of lorundrostat were −10.1 and −13.8 mm Hg, respectively.

Among participants without suppressed PRA, lorundrostat 100 mg once daily decreased systolic BP by 11.4 mm Hg, similar to BP reduction in those with suppressed PRA receiving the same dose.

A prespecified subgroup analysis showed that participants with obesity demonstrated greater BP lowering in response to lorundrostat. 

No instances of cortisol insufficiency occurred. Six participants had increases in serum potassium above 6.0 mEq/L (6.0 mmol/L) that corrected with dose reduction or drug discontinuation.

The increase in serum potassium is “expected and manageable,” Dr. Laffin said in an interview. “Anytime you disrupt aldosterone production, you’re going to have to have an increase in serum potassium, but it’s very manageable and not something that is worrisome.”

A phase 2 trial in 300 adults with uncontrolled hypertension is currently underway. The trial will evaluate the BP-lowering effects of lorundrostat, administered on a background of a standardized antihypertensive medication regimen. A larger phase 3 study will start before the end of the year.
 

‘New dawn’ for therapies targeting aldosterone

The author of an editorial in JAMA noted that more 70 years after the first isolation of aldosterone, then called electrocortin, “there is a new dawn for therapies targeting aldosterone.”

“There is now real potential to provide better-targeted treatment for patients in whom aldosterone excess is known to contribute to their clinical condition and influence their clinical outcome, notably those with difficult-to-control hypertension, obesity, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and the many with yet-to-be-diagnosed primary aldosteronism,” said Bryan Williams, MD, University College London.

The trial was funded by Mineralys Therapeutics, which is developing lorundrostat. Dr. Laffin reported that the Cleveland Clinic, his employer, was a study site for the Target-HTN trial and that C5Research, the academic research organization of the Cleveland Clinic, receives payment for services related to other Mineralys clinical trials. Dr. Laffin also reported receipt of personal fees from Medtronic, Lilly, and Crispr Therapeutics, grants from AstraZeneca, and stock options for LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Nissen reported receipt of grants from Mineralys during the conduct of the study and grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Medtronic, grants from MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Williams reported being the unremunerated chair of the steering committee designing a phase 3 trial of the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat for AstraZeneca.

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

Once-daily treatment with the selective aldosterone synthase inhibitor lorundrostat (Mineralys Therapeutics) safely and significantly reduced blood pressure in adults with uncontrolled hypertension in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.

Eight weeks after adding lorundrostat (50 mg or 100 mg once daily) or placebo to background therapy, the medication lowered seated automated office systolic BP significantly more than placebo (−9.6 mm Hg with 50 mg; −7.8 mm Hg with 100 mg), with the greatest effects seen in adults with obesity.

“We need new drugs for treatment-resistant hypertension,” study investigator Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. Lorundrostat represents a “new class” of antihypertensive that “looks to be safe and we’re seeing very large reductions in blood pressure.”

Results of the Target-HTN trial were published online in JAMA to coincide with presentation at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Aldosterone’s contribution ‘vastly underappreciated’

Excess aldosterone production contributes to uncontrolled BP in patients with obesity and other associated diseases, such as obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. 

“Aldosterone’s contribution to uncontrolled hypertension is vastly underappreciated,” first author and study presenter Luke Laffin, MD, also with the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Aldosterone synthase inhibitors are a novel class of BP-lowering medications that decrease aldosterone production. Lorundrostat is one of two such agents in advanced clinical development. The other is baxdrostat (CinCor Pharma/AstraZeneca).

The Target-HTN randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial enrolled 200 adults (mean age, 66 years; 60% women) with uncontrolled hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive medications; 42% of participants were taking three or more antihypertensive medications, 48% were obese and 40% had diabetes.

The study population was divided into two cohorts: an initial cohort of 163 adults with suppressed plasma renin activity at baseline (PRA ≤ 1.0 ng/mL per hour) and elevated plasma aldosterone (≥ 1.0 ng/dL) and a second cohort of 37 adults with PRA greater than 1.0 ng/mL per hour.

Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five doses of lorundrostat in the initial cohort (12.5 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily or 12.5 mg or 25 mg twice daily).

In the second cohort, participants were randomly assigned (1:6) to placebo or lorundrostat 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in automated office systolic BP from baseline to week 8.

Among participants with suppressed PRA, following 8 weeks of treatment, changes in office systolic BP of −14.1, −13.2, and −6.9 mm Hg were observed with 100 mg, 50 mg, and 12.5 mg once-daily lorundrostat, respectively, compared with a change of −4.1 mm Hg with placebo.

Reductions in systolic BP in individuals receiving twice-daily doses of 25 mg and 12.5 mg of lorundrostat were −10.1 and −13.8 mm Hg, respectively.

Among participants without suppressed PRA, lorundrostat 100 mg once daily decreased systolic BP by 11.4 mm Hg, similar to BP reduction in those with suppressed PRA receiving the same dose.

A prespecified subgroup analysis showed that participants with obesity demonstrated greater BP lowering in response to lorundrostat. 

No instances of cortisol insufficiency occurred. Six participants had increases in serum potassium above 6.0 mEq/L (6.0 mmol/L) that corrected with dose reduction or drug discontinuation.

The increase in serum potassium is “expected and manageable,” Dr. Laffin said in an interview. “Anytime you disrupt aldosterone production, you’re going to have to have an increase in serum potassium, but it’s very manageable and not something that is worrisome.”

A phase 2 trial in 300 adults with uncontrolled hypertension is currently underway. The trial will evaluate the BP-lowering effects of lorundrostat, administered on a background of a standardized antihypertensive medication regimen. A larger phase 3 study will start before the end of the year.
 

‘New dawn’ for therapies targeting aldosterone

The author of an editorial in JAMA noted that more 70 years after the first isolation of aldosterone, then called electrocortin, “there is a new dawn for therapies targeting aldosterone.”

“There is now real potential to provide better-targeted treatment for patients in whom aldosterone excess is known to contribute to their clinical condition and influence their clinical outcome, notably those with difficult-to-control hypertension, obesity, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and the many with yet-to-be-diagnosed primary aldosteronism,” said Bryan Williams, MD, University College London.

The trial was funded by Mineralys Therapeutics, which is developing lorundrostat. Dr. Laffin reported that the Cleveland Clinic, his employer, was a study site for the Target-HTN trial and that C5Research, the academic research organization of the Cleveland Clinic, receives payment for services related to other Mineralys clinical trials. Dr. Laffin also reported receipt of personal fees from Medtronic, Lilly, and Crispr Therapeutics, grants from AstraZeneca, and stock options for LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Nissen reported receipt of grants from Mineralys during the conduct of the study and grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Medtronic, grants from MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Williams reported being the unremunerated chair of the steering committee designing a phase 3 trial of the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat for AstraZeneca.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals), an investigational, subcutaneously administered small-interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic in development for the treatment of hypertension, met the primary and secondary endpoints, with an “encouraging” safety profile in the phase 2 KARDIA-1 study, the company announced.

KARDIA-1 is a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zilebesiran as monotherapy in 394 adults with mild to moderate untreated hypertension or on stable therapy with one or more antihypertensive drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms during a 12-month double-blind period and double-blind extension period: 150 mg or 300 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 6 months, 300 mg or 600 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 3 months, or placebo. Patients taking placebo were randomly assigned to one of the four initial zilebesiran dose regimens beginning at month 6.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 3 months assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Topline data show a dose-dependent, clinically significant reduction in 24-hour mean SBP, with a placebo-subtracted reduction greater than 15 mm Hg (P < .0001) with both the 300 mg and 600 mg doses.

The study also met key secondary endpoints, showing “consistent and sustained reductions” in SBP at 6 months, which supports quarterly or biannual dosing, the company said.

There was one death due to cardiopulmonary arrest in a zilebesiran-treated patient that was considered unrelated to the drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.6% of zilebesiran-treated patients and 6.7% of placebo-treated patients. None was considered related to the study drug.

Adverse events occurring in 5% or more of zilebesiran-treated patients in any dose arm included COVID-19, injection-site reaction, hyperkalemia, hypertension, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, and headache.

“As a physician, I believe these KARDIA-1 results, which demonstrate clinically significant reductions in systolic blood pressure of greater than 15 mm Hg, along with the ability to achieve durable tonic blood pressure control, provide hope that we may one day have access to a novel therapy with the potential to address the significant unmet needs of patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are at high risk of future cardiovascular events,” study investigator George L. Bakris, MD, director, American Heart Association Comprehensive Hypertension Center, University of Chicago Medicine, said in a statement.

The phase 2 results “further validate” the phase 1 results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Simon Fox, PhD, vice president, zilebesiran program lead at Alnylam, said in the statement.

The full KARDIA-1 results will be reported at an upcoming scientific conference, the statement notes. Topline results from the KARDIA-2 phase 2 study of zilebesiran in combination with one of three standard classes of antihypertensive medications in patients with mild to moderate hypertension are expected in early 2024.

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

Zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals), an investigational, subcutaneously administered small-interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic in development for the treatment of hypertension, met the primary and secondary endpoints, with an “encouraging” safety profile in the phase 2 KARDIA-1 study, the company announced.

KARDIA-1 is a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zilebesiran as monotherapy in 394 adults with mild to moderate untreated hypertension or on stable therapy with one or more antihypertensive drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms during a 12-month double-blind period and double-blind extension period: 150 mg or 300 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 6 months, 300 mg or 600 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 3 months, or placebo. Patients taking placebo were randomly assigned to one of the four initial zilebesiran dose regimens beginning at month 6.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 3 months assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Topline data show a dose-dependent, clinically significant reduction in 24-hour mean SBP, with a placebo-subtracted reduction greater than 15 mm Hg (P < .0001) with both the 300 mg and 600 mg doses.

The study also met key secondary endpoints, showing “consistent and sustained reductions” in SBP at 6 months, which supports quarterly or biannual dosing, the company said.

There was one death due to cardiopulmonary arrest in a zilebesiran-treated patient that was considered unrelated to the drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.6% of zilebesiran-treated patients and 6.7% of placebo-treated patients. None was considered related to the study drug.

Adverse events occurring in 5% or more of zilebesiran-treated patients in any dose arm included COVID-19, injection-site reaction, hyperkalemia, hypertension, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, and headache.

“As a physician, I believe these KARDIA-1 results, which demonstrate clinically significant reductions in systolic blood pressure of greater than 15 mm Hg, along with the ability to achieve durable tonic blood pressure control, provide hope that we may one day have access to a novel therapy with the potential to address the significant unmet needs of patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are at high risk of future cardiovascular events,” study investigator George L. Bakris, MD, director, American Heart Association Comprehensive Hypertension Center, University of Chicago Medicine, said in a statement.

The phase 2 results “further validate” the phase 1 results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Simon Fox, PhD, vice president, zilebesiran program lead at Alnylam, said in the statement.

The full KARDIA-1 results will be reported at an upcoming scientific conference, the statement notes. Topline results from the KARDIA-2 phase 2 study of zilebesiran in combination with one of three standard classes of antihypertensive medications in patients with mild to moderate hypertension are expected in early 2024.

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

Zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals), an investigational, subcutaneously administered small-interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic in development for the treatment of hypertension, met the primary and secondary endpoints, with an “encouraging” safety profile in the phase 2 KARDIA-1 study, the company announced.

KARDIA-1 is a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zilebesiran as monotherapy in 394 adults with mild to moderate untreated hypertension or on stable therapy with one or more antihypertensive drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms during a 12-month double-blind period and double-blind extension period: 150 mg or 300 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 6 months, 300 mg or 600 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 3 months, or placebo. Patients taking placebo were randomly assigned to one of the four initial zilebesiran dose regimens beginning at month 6.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 3 months assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Topline data show a dose-dependent, clinically significant reduction in 24-hour mean SBP, with a placebo-subtracted reduction greater than 15 mm Hg (P < .0001) with both the 300 mg and 600 mg doses.

The study also met key secondary endpoints, showing “consistent and sustained reductions” in SBP at 6 months, which supports quarterly or biannual dosing, the company said.

There was one death due to cardiopulmonary arrest in a zilebesiran-treated patient that was considered unrelated to the drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.6% of zilebesiran-treated patients and 6.7% of placebo-treated patients. None was considered related to the study drug.

Adverse events occurring in 5% or more of zilebesiran-treated patients in any dose arm included COVID-19, injection-site reaction, hyperkalemia, hypertension, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, and headache.

“As a physician, I believe these KARDIA-1 results, which demonstrate clinically significant reductions in systolic blood pressure of greater than 15 mm Hg, along with the ability to achieve durable tonic blood pressure control, provide hope that we may one day have access to a novel therapy with the potential to address the significant unmet needs of patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are at high risk of future cardiovascular events,” study investigator George L. Bakris, MD, director, American Heart Association Comprehensive Hypertension Center, University of Chicago Medicine, said in a statement.

The phase 2 results “further validate” the phase 1 results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Simon Fox, PhD, vice president, zilebesiran program lead at Alnylam, said in the statement.

The full KARDIA-1 results will be reported at an upcoming scientific conference, the statement notes. Topline results from the KARDIA-2 phase 2 study of zilebesiran in combination with one of three standard classes of antihypertensive medications in patients with mild to moderate hypertension are expected in early 2024.

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

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System (Medtronic) is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

The panel voted 13-0, with 0 abstentions, that it is safe, but 7-6, with 0 abstentions, that it is effective. It voted 6-6, with 1 abstention, that the benefits outweigh the risk. The moderator’s tiebreaker vote went against the benefit-risk profile, for a final vote of 6 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstention.

The Symplicity Spyral system provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy. The proposed indication is for reduction of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite their use of antihypertensive medications, or in patients who cannot tolerate antihypertensive medications.

The Spyral device received breakthrough device designation in March 2020. The FDA determined that the device met the criteria for inclusion in the program because it was a novel technology and had the potential to provide more effective treatment for patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.

Medtronic presented data from two studies, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF and SPYRAL HTN-ON randomized trials.

HTN-OFF enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be discontinued at the start of the trial. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months post renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device compared with sham control patients.

HTN-ON evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their blood pressure medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03–mm Hg reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure in active-treatment patients compared with sham control patients.

Many on the panel agreed that the device was safe and effective. Randall Starling, MD, professor of medicine in the Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic, said that he was comfortable with the data presented by Medtronic and that his affirmative vote reflected his recognition that hypertension is not effectively treated with current medications and that another tool in the armamentarium to treat patients is needed.

Matthew Corriere, MD, Frankel Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, abstained from voting on whether the benefits of the system outweighed its risks. “I think there is potential benefit, but we don’t know which patients are most likely to have a benefit that outweighs any risks. More selective indications for this product could potentially tip the balance of the benefit outweighing the risks,” he said.

Robert Yeh, MD, director, Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said he believed that the device was safe and effective and that its use resulted in a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. He pointed to the wide variability in effectiveness across the patient population and suggested that as the device becomes more widely used, experience will show which patients will benefit the most from its use.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research at St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., said the data presented by Medtronic reassured him that the device was safe, but he said he remained unconvinced that the device was effective. “I think that, while this is a safe procedure, the efficacy was mild at best, and that was only at 3 months,” he said.

Other panel members agreed.

“Yes as to safety, but no as to effectiveness,” said Mark Lockhart, MD, professor, department of radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham. “There is too much uncertainty about there actually being a real benefit to outweigh even a small risk of an invasive procedure,” he said.

One of the statisticians on the panel, Benjamin Saville, PhD, director and senior statistical scientist, Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas, said he did not feel that effectiveness was adequately demonstrated in the trial data presented by Medtronic.

He agreed there is a small but potentially clinically meaningful benefit but voted no because he did not think benefit was demonstrated for those patients in the proposed indication. “For me, I think I would need additional randomized data to convince me that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Julia Lewis, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against endorsing the device for efficacy. “We have one study that is negative and one that is minimally positive,” and there is no reason to think one of those results is more valid than the other, she said.

“So as far as I’m concerned, we still don’t know the efficacy of this, and if it gets on the market, the anecdotal, small sample size of each individual physician using this intervention will not allow them to select out the patients that will benefit from those who won’t benefit, and to not have a definitive study that better defines that it is efficacious and in whom is actually a disservice to the public,” she concluded.

After the panel meeting, Medtronic issued a statement on the result.

“We appreciate the robust conversation that occurred prior to the vote,” Jason Weidman, senior vice-president of the coronary and renal denervation business at Medtronic, said in the statement. “We will continue to collaborate with the FDA on bringing a new option to the millions of people living with high blood pressure.”

The lead investigator of the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, David Kandzari, MD, chief at Piedmont Heart Institute and Cardiovascular Services, added, “The totality of the evidence demonstrated that there is a benefit with the SPYRAL RDN catheter, and there is no question about the safety of the procedure.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel has deemed the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation (uRDN) System safe and effective in lowering blood pressure for adults with uncontrolled hypertension who may be inadequately responsive to, or who are intolerant of, antihypertensive medications.

The device is intended to be used in renal arteries with diameters of 3.0 to 8.0 mm.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

After hearing data from three trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE II, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, the 12-member panel unanimously agreed that there was “reasonable assurance” that the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System (ReCor Medical) was safe.

However, while most of the panel felt the device was effective, a few disagreed.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research for the Mid-America Heart and Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo., who was one of the three panel members who voted no regarding efficacy, stated that he had concerns about the duration and the degree of efficacy shown in the trials.

Mark Lockhart, MD, University of Alabama, Birmingham, also voted no. “I do think there was an effect for 2 months, but the duration of that positive effect appears to decline after that period of time.”

Benjamin Saville, PhD, echoed Dr. Lockhart’s concern: “The benefit is more short term, it is unclear what the long term benefit would be.”

Data from all three trials showed a significant drop in blood pressure with the device compared with pharmacologic therapy, but after 2 months of follow-up, that advantage disappeared.

The FDA highlighted data from the trials that showed that at 2 months, uRDN patients experienced significant reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with those treated with a sham device; however, by 6 months, there was a difference of only 1 mm Hg between the two groups.

“It seems when I look at 6 months and 12 months, the benefit is very tiny. We know the safety is fine, but a benefit of less than 1 mm Hg difference would not make me want to have an intervention,” said statistician Janet Wittes, PhD.

“I think the device is efficacious, even though there is not much difference between sham and treatment, but a big issue is the fact that half of our patients are not compliant. That will make the benefits over sham more clear,” noted Jim Blankenship, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of cardiology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

John Hirshfeld Jr., MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he voted yes on safety and efficacy but admitted he had some misgivings. “The sample size was small, but it is a novel tool to add to our tool box, and hopefully it will be used responsibly,” he said.

John Somberg, MD, professor emeritus of medicine, cardiology, and pharmacology, Rush University, Chicago, said the data on this procedure show “that antihypertensive medication works. Denervation is not superior to medications. It lowers blood pressure and is persistent, but when you can take the sham group to almost as good control as you get in the denervation group, that shows it can also be done with medicines.”

The panel wants to see results from additional studies in important subpopulations who are affected by hypertension, including Black people, women, the elderly, and people who already have cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes and heart failure.

Deneen Hesser, RN, the panel’s patient representative, called for any postmarketing studies that may be conducted by ReCor to include a good patient education program and also a way of documenting patient-reported outcomes.

“This would help us ascertain how happy people were if they were able to reduce their medication burden by, for example, one drug, or if they were willing to undergo a procedure to be able to stop taking so many antihypertensive medications,” she said.

The panel will meet again to review data on Medtronic’s Simplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System, which is also for patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel has deemed the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation (uRDN) System safe and effective in lowering blood pressure for adults with uncontrolled hypertension who may be inadequately responsive to, or who are intolerant of, antihypertensive medications.

The device is intended to be used in renal arteries with diameters of 3.0 to 8.0 mm.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

After hearing data from three trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE II, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, the 12-member panel unanimously agreed that there was “reasonable assurance” that the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System (ReCor Medical) was safe.

However, while most of the panel felt the device was effective, a few disagreed.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research for the Mid-America Heart and Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo., who was one of the three panel members who voted no regarding efficacy, stated that he had concerns about the duration and the degree of efficacy shown in the trials.

Mark Lockhart, MD, University of Alabama, Birmingham, also voted no. “I do think there was an effect for 2 months, but the duration of that positive effect appears to decline after that period of time.”

Benjamin Saville, PhD, echoed Dr. Lockhart’s concern: “The benefit is more short term, it is unclear what the long term benefit would be.”

Data from all three trials showed a significant drop in blood pressure with the device compared with pharmacologic therapy, but after 2 months of follow-up, that advantage disappeared.

The FDA highlighted data from the trials that showed that at 2 months, uRDN patients experienced significant reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with those treated with a sham device; however, by 6 months, there was a difference of only 1 mm Hg between the two groups.

“It seems when I look at 6 months and 12 months, the benefit is very tiny. We know the safety is fine, but a benefit of less than 1 mm Hg difference would not make me want to have an intervention,” said statistician Janet Wittes, PhD.

“I think the device is efficacious, even though there is not much difference between sham and treatment, but a big issue is the fact that half of our patients are not compliant. That will make the benefits over sham more clear,” noted Jim Blankenship, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of cardiology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

John Hirshfeld Jr., MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he voted yes on safety and efficacy but admitted he had some misgivings. “The sample size was small, but it is a novel tool to add to our tool box, and hopefully it will be used responsibly,” he said.

John Somberg, MD, professor emeritus of medicine, cardiology, and pharmacology, Rush University, Chicago, said the data on this procedure show “that antihypertensive medication works. Denervation is not superior to medications. It lowers blood pressure and is persistent, but when you can take the sham group to almost as good control as you get in the denervation group, that shows it can also be done with medicines.”

The panel wants to see results from additional studies in important subpopulations who are affected by hypertension, including Black people, women, the elderly, and people who already have cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes and heart failure.

Deneen Hesser, RN, the panel’s patient representative, called for any postmarketing studies that may be conducted by ReCor to include a good patient education program and also a way of documenting patient-reported outcomes.

“This would help us ascertain how happy people were if they were able to reduce their medication burden by, for example, one drug, or if they were willing to undergo a procedure to be able to stop taking so many antihypertensive medications,” she said.

The panel will meet again to review data on Medtronic’s Simplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System, which is also for patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Circulatory System Devices Panel has deemed the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation (uRDN) System safe and effective in lowering blood pressure for adults with uncontrolled hypertension who may be inadequately responsive to, or who are intolerant of, antihypertensive medications.

The device is intended to be used in renal arteries with diameters of 3.0 to 8.0 mm.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

After hearing data from three trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, RADIANCE II, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, the 12-member panel unanimously agreed that there was “reasonable assurance” that the ReCor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System (ReCor Medical) was safe.

However, while most of the panel felt the device was effective, a few disagreed.

Keith Allen, MD, director of surgical research for the Mid-America Heart and Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo., who was one of the three panel members who voted no regarding efficacy, stated that he had concerns about the duration and the degree of efficacy shown in the trials.

Mark Lockhart, MD, University of Alabama, Birmingham, also voted no. “I do think there was an effect for 2 months, but the duration of that positive effect appears to decline after that period of time.”

Benjamin Saville, PhD, echoed Dr. Lockhart’s concern: “The benefit is more short term, it is unclear what the long term benefit would be.”

Data from all three trials showed a significant drop in blood pressure with the device compared with pharmacologic therapy, but after 2 months of follow-up, that advantage disappeared.

The FDA highlighted data from the trials that showed that at 2 months, uRDN patients experienced significant reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with those treated with a sham device; however, by 6 months, there was a difference of only 1 mm Hg between the two groups.

“It seems when I look at 6 months and 12 months, the benefit is very tiny. We know the safety is fine, but a benefit of less than 1 mm Hg difference would not make me want to have an intervention,” said statistician Janet Wittes, PhD.

“I think the device is efficacious, even though there is not much difference between sham and treatment, but a big issue is the fact that half of our patients are not compliant. That will make the benefits over sham more clear,” noted Jim Blankenship, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of cardiology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

John Hirshfeld Jr., MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he voted yes on safety and efficacy but admitted he had some misgivings. “The sample size was small, but it is a novel tool to add to our tool box, and hopefully it will be used responsibly,” he said.

John Somberg, MD, professor emeritus of medicine, cardiology, and pharmacology, Rush University, Chicago, said the data on this procedure show “that antihypertensive medication works. Denervation is not superior to medications. It lowers blood pressure and is persistent, but when you can take the sham group to almost as good control as you get in the denervation group, that shows it can also be done with medicines.”

The panel wants to see results from additional studies in important subpopulations who are affected by hypertension, including Black people, women, the elderly, and people who already have cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes and heart failure.

Deneen Hesser, RN, the panel’s patient representative, called for any postmarketing studies that may be conducted by ReCor to include a good patient education program and also a way of documenting patient-reported outcomes.

“This would help us ascertain how happy people were if they were able to reduce their medication burden by, for example, one drug, or if they were willing to undergo a procedure to be able to stop taking so many antihypertensive medications,” she said.

The panel will meet again to review data on Medtronic’s Simplicity Spyral Renal Denervation System, which is also for patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A scientific review by researchers in Spain confirms the negative influence of artificial sweeteners on several primary cardiovascular risk factors. It also shows evidence that these products are not beneficial for controlling excess weight. 

Francisco Gómez-Delgado, MD, PhD, and Pablo Pérez-Martínez, MD, PhD, are members of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis and of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. They have coordinated an updated review of the leading scientific evidence surrounding artificial sweeteners: evidence showing that far from positively affecting our health, they have “negative effects for the cardiometabolic system.”

The paper, published in Current Opinion in Cardiology, delves into the consumption of these sweeteners and their negative influence on the development of obesity and of several of the most important cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes).

Globalization and the increase in consumption of ultraprocessed foods have led to a need for greater knowledge on the health impacts of certain nutrients such as artificial sweeteners (nutritive and nonnutritive). This review aims to analyze their role and their effect on cardiometabolic and cardiovascular disease risk.
 

Cardiovascular risk

The detrimental effects of a high-calorie, high-sugar diet have been well established. For this reason, health authorities recommend limiting sugar consumption. The recommendation has led the food industry to develop different artificial sweeteners with specific properties, such as flavor and stability (nutritive artificial sweeteners), and others aimed at limiting sugar in the diet (nonnutritive artificial sweeteners). Recent evidence explores the influence of these two types of artificial sweeteners on cardiovascular disease risk through risk factors such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, among others.

Initially, the consumption of artificial sweeteners was presented as an alternative for reducing calorie intake in the diet as an option for people with excess weight and obesity. However, as this paper explains, the consumption of these artificial sweeteners favors weight gain because of neuroendocrine mechanisms related to satiety that are abnormally activated when artificial sweeteners are consumed.
 

Weight gain

On the other hand, evidence shows that consuming artificial sweeteners does not encourage weight loss. “Quite the contrary,” Dr. Pérez-Martínez, scientific director at the Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute and internist at the University Hospital Reina Sofia, both in Córdoba, told this news organization. “There is evidence showing weight gain resulting from the effect that artificial sweetener consumption has at the neurohormonal level by altering the mechanisms involved in regulating the feeling of satiety.”

However, on the basis of current evidence, sugar cannot be claimed to be less harmful. “What we do know is that in both cases, we should reduce or remove them from our diets and replace them with other healthier alternatives for weight management, such as eating plant-based products or being physically active.”
 

Confronting ignorance 

Nonetheless, these recommendations are conditional, “because the weight of the evidence is not extremely high, since there have not been a whole lot of studies. All nutritional studies must be viewed with caution,” Manuel Anguita, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Anguita is department head of clinical cardiology at the University Hospital Reina Sofia in Córdoba and past president of the Spanish Society of Cardiology.

“It’s something that should be included within the medical record when you’re assessing cardiovascular risk. In addition to identifying patients who use artificial sweeteners, it’s especially important to emphasize that it’s not an appropriate recommendation for weight management.” Healthier measures include moderate exercise and the Mediterranean diet.

Explaining why this research is valuable, he said, “It’s generally useful because there’s ignorance not only in the population but among physicians as well [about] these negative effects of sweeteners.”
 

Diabetes and metabolic syndrome

Artificial sweeteners cause significant disruptions in the endocrine system, leading our metabolism to function abnormally. The review revealed that consuming artificial sweeteners raises the risk for type 2 diabetes by between 18% and 24% and raises the risk for metabolic syndrome by up to 44%.

Dr. Gómez-Delgado, an internal medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Jaen in Spain and first author of the study, discussed the deleterious effects of sweeteners on metabolism. “On one hand, neurohormonal disorders impact appetite, and the feeling of satiety is abnormally delayed.” On the other hand, “they induce excessive insulin secretion in the pancreas,” which in the long run, encourages metabolic disorders that lead to diabetes. Ultimately, this process produces what we know as “dysbiosis, since our microbiota is unable to process these artificial sweeteners.” Dysbiosis triggers specific pathophysiologic processes that negatively affect cardiometabolic and cardiovascular systems.
 

No differences 

Regarding the type of sweetener, Dr. Gómez-Delgado noted that currently available studies assess the consumption of special dietary products that, in most cases, include various types of artificial sweeteners. “So, it’s not possible to define specific differences between them as to how they impact our health.” Additional studies are needed to confirm this effect at the cardiometabolic level and to analyze the different types of artificial sweeteners individually.

“There’s enough evidence to confirm that consuming artificial sweeteners negatively interferes with our metabolism – especially glucose metabolism – and increases the risk of developing diabetes,” said Dr. Gómez-Delgado.
 

High-sodium drinks

When it comes to the influence of artificial sweeteners on hypertension, “there is no single explanation. The World Health Organization already discussed this issue 4-5 years ago, not only due to their carcinogenic risk, but also due to this cardiovascular risk in terms of a lack of control of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Anguita.

Another important point “is that this is not in reference to the sweeteners themselves, but to soft drinks containing those components, which is where we have more studies,” he added. There are two factors explaining this increase in hypertension, which poses a problem at the population level, with medium- to long-term follow-up. “The sugary beverages that we mentioned have a higher sodium content. That is, the sweeteners add this element, which is a factor that’s directly linked to the increase in blood pressure levels.” Another factor that can influence blood pressure is “the increase in insulin secretion that has been described as resulting from sweeteners. In the medium and long term, this is associated with increased blood pressure levels.”
 

Cardiovascular risk factor?

Are artificial sweeteners considered to be a new cardiovascular risk factor? “What they really do is increase the incidence of the other classic risk factors,” including obesity, said Dr. Anguita. It has been shown that artificial sweeteners don’t reduce obesity when used continuously. Nonetheless, “there is still not enough evidence to view it in the same light as the classic risk factors,” added Dr. Anguita. However, it is a factor that can clearly worsen the control of the other factors. Therefore, “it’s appropriate to sound an alarm and explain that it’s not the best way to lose weight; there are many other healthier choices.”

“We need more robust evidence to take a clear position on the use of this type of sweetener and its detrimental effect on health. Meanwhile, it would be ideal to limit their consumption or even avoid adding artificial sweeteners to coffee or teas,” added Dr. Pérez-Martínez.
 

Regulate consumption 

Dr. Pérez-Martínez mentioned that the measures proposed to regulate the consumption of artificial sweeteners and to modify the current legislation must involve “minimizing the consumption of these special dietary products as much as possible and even avoiding adding these artificial sweeteners to the foods that we consume; for example, to coffee and tea.” On the other hand, “we must provide consumers with information that is as clear and simple as possible regarding the composition of the food they consume and how it impacts their health.”

However, “we need more evidence to be able to take a clear position on what type of sweeteners we can consume in our diet and also to what extent we should limit their presence in the foods we consume,” said Dr. Pérez-Martínez. 

Last, “most of the evidence is from short-term observational studies that assess frequencies and patterns of consumption of foods containing these artificial sweeteners.” Of course, “we need studies that specifically analyze their effects at the metabolic level as well as longer-term studies where the nutritional follow-up of participants is more accurate and rigorous, especially when it comes to the consumption of this type of food,” concluded Dr. Gómez-Delgado.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

A scientific review by researchers in Spain confirms the negative influence of artificial sweeteners on several primary cardiovascular risk factors. It also shows evidence that these products are not beneficial for controlling excess weight. 

Francisco Gómez-Delgado, MD, PhD, and Pablo Pérez-Martínez, MD, PhD, are members of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis and of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. They have coordinated an updated review of the leading scientific evidence surrounding artificial sweeteners: evidence showing that far from positively affecting our health, they have “negative effects for the cardiometabolic system.”

The paper, published in Current Opinion in Cardiology, delves into the consumption of these sweeteners and their negative influence on the development of obesity and of several of the most important cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes).

Globalization and the increase in consumption of ultraprocessed foods have led to a need for greater knowledge on the health impacts of certain nutrients such as artificial sweeteners (nutritive and nonnutritive). This review aims to analyze their role and their effect on cardiometabolic and cardiovascular disease risk.
 

Cardiovascular risk

The detrimental effects of a high-calorie, high-sugar diet have been well established. For this reason, health authorities recommend limiting sugar consumption. The recommendation has led the food industry to develop different artificial sweeteners with specific properties, such as flavor and stability (nutritive artificial sweeteners), and others aimed at limiting sugar in the diet (nonnutritive artificial sweeteners). Recent evidence explores the influence of these two types of artificial sweeteners on cardiovascular disease risk through risk factors such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, among others.

Initially, the consumption of artificial sweeteners was presented as an alternative for reducing calorie intake in the diet as an option for people with excess weight and obesity. However, as this paper explains, the consumption of these artificial sweeteners favors weight gain because of neuroendocrine mechanisms related to satiety that are abnormally activated when artificial sweeteners are consumed.
 

Weight gain

On the other hand, evidence shows that consuming artificial sweeteners does not encourage weight loss. “Quite the contrary,” Dr. Pérez-Martínez, scientific director at the Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute and internist at the University Hospital Reina Sofia, both in Córdoba, told this news organization. “There is evidence showing weight gain resulting from the effect that artificial sweetener consumption has at the neurohormonal level by altering the mechanisms involved in regulating the feeling of satiety.”

However, on the basis of current evidence, sugar cannot be claimed to be less harmful. “What we do know is that in both cases, we should reduce or remove them from our diets and replace them with other healthier alternatives for weight management, such as eating plant-based products or being physically active.”
 

Confronting ignorance 

Nonetheless, these recommendations are conditional, “because the weight of the evidence is not extremely high, since there have not been a whole lot of studies. All nutritional studies must be viewed with caution,” Manuel Anguita, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Anguita is department head of clinical cardiology at the University Hospital Reina Sofia in Córdoba and past president of the Spanish Society of Cardiology.

“It’s something that should be included within the medical record when you’re assessing cardiovascular risk. In addition to identifying patients who use artificial sweeteners, it’s especially important to emphasize that it’s not an appropriate recommendation for weight management.” Healthier measures include moderate exercise and the Mediterranean diet.

Explaining why this research is valuable, he said, “It’s generally useful because there’s ignorance not only in the population but among physicians as well [about] these negative effects of sweeteners.”
 

Diabetes and metabolic syndrome

Artificial sweeteners cause significant disruptions in the endocrine system, leading our metabolism to function abnormally. The review revealed that consuming artificial sweeteners raises the risk for type 2 diabetes by between 18% and 24% and raises the risk for metabolic syndrome by up to 44%.

Dr. Gómez-Delgado, an internal medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Jaen in Spain and first author of the study, discussed the deleterious effects of sweeteners on metabolism. “On one hand, neurohormonal disorders impact appetite, and the feeling of satiety is abnormally delayed.” On the other hand, “they induce excessive insulin secretion in the pancreas,” which in the long run, encourages metabolic disorders that lead to diabetes. Ultimately, this process produces what we know as “dysbiosis, since our microbiota is unable to process these artificial sweeteners.” Dysbiosis triggers specific pathophysiologic processes that negatively affect cardiometabolic and cardiovascular systems.
 

No differences 

Regarding the type of sweetener, Dr. Gómez-Delgado noted that currently available studies assess the consumption of special dietary products that, in most cases, include various types of artificial sweeteners. “So, it’s not possible to define specific differences between them as to how they impact our health.” Additional studies are needed to confirm this effect at the cardiometabolic level and to analyze the different types of artificial sweeteners individually.

“There’s enough evidence to confirm that consuming artificial sweeteners negatively interferes with our metabolism – especially glucose metabolism – and increases the risk of developing diabetes,” said Dr. Gómez-Delgado.
 

High-sodium drinks

When it comes to the influence of artificial sweeteners on hypertension, “there is no single explanation. The World Health Organization already discussed this issue 4-5 years ago, not only due to their carcinogenic risk, but also due to this cardiovascular risk in terms of a lack of control of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Anguita.

Another important point “is that this is not in reference to the sweeteners themselves, but to soft drinks containing those components, which is where we have more studies,” he added. There are two factors explaining this increase in hypertension, which poses a problem at the population level, with medium- to long-term follow-up. “The sugary beverages that we mentioned have a higher sodium content. That is, the sweeteners add this element, which is a factor that’s directly linked to the increase in blood pressure levels.” Another factor that can influence blood pressure is “the increase in insulin secretion that has been described as resulting from sweeteners. In the medium and long term, this is associated with increased blood pressure levels.”
 

Cardiovascular risk factor?

Are artificial sweeteners considered to be a new cardiovascular risk factor? “What they really do is increase the incidence of the other classic risk factors,” including obesity, said Dr. Anguita. It has been shown that artificial sweeteners don’t reduce obesity when used continuously. Nonetheless, “there is still not enough evidence to view it in the same light as the classic risk factors,” added Dr. Anguita. However, it is a factor that can clearly worsen the control of the other factors. Therefore, “it’s appropriate to sound an alarm and explain that it’s not the best way to lose weight; there are many other healthier choices.”

“We need more robust evidence to take a clear position on the use of this type of sweetener and its detrimental effect on health. Meanwhile, it would be ideal to limit their consumption or even avoid adding artificial sweeteners to coffee or teas,” added Dr. Pérez-Martínez.
 

Regulate consumption 

Dr. Pérez-Martínez mentioned that the measures proposed to regulate the consumption of artificial sweeteners and to modify the current legislation must involve “minimizing the consumption of these special dietary products as much as possible and even avoiding adding these artificial sweeteners to the foods that we consume; for example, to coffee and tea.” On the other hand, “we must provide consumers with information that is as clear and simple as possible regarding the composition of the food they consume and how it impacts their health.”

However, “we need more evidence to be able to take a clear position on what type of sweeteners we can consume in our diet and also to what extent we should limit their presence in the foods we consume,” said Dr. Pérez-Martínez. 

Last, “most of the evidence is from short-term observational studies that assess frequencies and patterns of consumption of foods containing these artificial sweeteners.” Of course, “we need studies that specifically analyze their effects at the metabolic level as well as longer-term studies where the nutritional follow-up of participants is more accurate and rigorous, especially when it comes to the consumption of this type of food,” concluded Dr. Gómez-Delgado.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

A scientific review by researchers in Spain confirms the negative influence of artificial sweeteners on several primary cardiovascular risk factors. It also shows evidence that these products are not beneficial for controlling excess weight. 

Francisco Gómez-Delgado, MD, PhD, and Pablo Pérez-Martínez, MD, PhD, are members of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis and of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. They have coordinated an updated review of the leading scientific evidence surrounding artificial sweeteners: evidence showing that far from positively affecting our health, they have “negative effects for the cardiometabolic system.”

The paper, published in Current Opinion in Cardiology, delves into the consumption of these sweeteners and their negative influence on the development of obesity and of several of the most important cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes).

Globalization and the increase in consumption of ultraprocessed foods have led to a need for greater knowledge on the health impacts of certain nutrients such as artificial sweeteners (nutritive and nonnutritive). This review aims to analyze their role and their effect on cardiometabolic and cardiovascular disease risk.
 

Cardiovascular risk

The detrimental effects of a high-calorie, high-sugar diet have been well established. For this reason, health authorities recommend limiting sugar consumption. The recommendation has led the food industry to develop different artificial sweeteners with specific properties, such as flavor and stability (nutritive artificial sweeteners), and others aimed at limiting sugar in the diet (nonnutritive artificial sweeteners). Recent evidence explores the influence of these two types of artificial sweeteners on cardiovascular disease risk through risk factors such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, among others.

Initially, the consumption of artificial sweeteners was presented as an alternative for reducing calorie intake in the diet as an option for people with excess weight and obesity. However, as this paper explains, the consumption of these artificial sweeteners favors weight gain because of neuroendocrine mechanisms related to satiety that are abnormally activated when artificial sweeteners are consumed.
 

Weight gain

On the other hand, evidence shows that consuming artificial sweeteners does not encourage weight loss. “Quite the contrary,” Dr. Pérez-Martínez, scientific director at the Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute and internist at the University Hospital Reina Sofia, both in Córdoba, told this news organization. “There is evidence showing weight gain resulting from the effect that artificial sweetener consumption has at the neurohormonal level by altering the mechanisms involved in regulating the feeling of satiety.”

However, on the basis of current evidence, sugar cannot be claimed to be less harmful. “What we do know is that in both cases, we should reduce or remove them from our diets and replace them with other healthier alternatives for weight management, such as eating plant-based products or being physically active.”
 

Confronting ignorance 

Nonetheless, these recommendations are conditional, “because the weight of the evidence is not extremely high, since there have not been a whole lot of studies. All nutritional studies must be viewed with caution,” Manuel Anguita, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Anguita is department head of clinical cardiology at the University Hospital Reina Sofia in Córdoba and past president of the Spanish Society of Cardiology.

“It’s something that should be included within the medical record when you’re assessing cardiovascular risk. In addition to identifying patients who use artificial sweeteners, it’s especially important to emphasize that it’s not an appropriate recommendation for weight management.” Healthier measures include moderate exercise and the Mediterranean diet.

Explaining why this research is valuable, he said, “It’s generally useful because there’s ignorance not only in the population but among physicians as well [about] these negative effects of sweeteners.”
 

Diabetes and metabolic syndrome

Artificial sweeteners cause significant disruptions in the endocrine system, leading our metabolism to function abnormally. The review revealed that consuming artificial sweeteners raises the risk for type 2 diabetes by between 18% and 24% and raises the risk for metabolic syndrome by up to 44%.

Dr. Gómez-Delgado, an internal medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Jaen in Spain and first author of the study, discussed the deleterious effects of sweeteners on metabolism. “On one hand, neurohormonal disorders impact appetite, and the feeling of satiety is abnormally delayed.” On the other hand, “they induce excessive insulin secretion in the pancreas,” which in the long run, encourages metabolic disorders that lead to diabetes. Ultimately, this process produces what we know as “dysbiosis, since our microbiota is unable to process these artificial sweeteners.” Dysbiosis triggers specific pathophysiologic processes that negatively affect cardiometabolic and cardiovascular systems.
 

No differences 

Regarding the type of sweetener, Dr. Gómez-Delgado noted that currently available studies assess the consumption of special dietary products that, in most cases, include various types of artificial sweeteners. “So, it’s not possible to define specific differences between them as to how they impact our health.” Additional studies are needed to confirm this effect at the cardiometabolic level and to analyze the different types of artificial sweeteners individually.

“There’s enough evidence to confirm that consuming artificial sweeteners negatively interferes with our metabolism – especially glucose metabolism – and increases the risk of developing diabetes,” said Dr. Gómez-Delgado.
 

High-sodium drinks

When it comes to the influence of artificial sweeteners on hypertension, “there is no single explanation. The World Health Organization already discussed this issue 4-5 years ago, not only due to their carcinogenic risk, but also due to this cardiovascular risk in terms of a lack of control of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Anguita.

Another important point “is that this is not in reference to the sweeteners themselves, but to soft drinks containing those components, which is where we have more studies,” he added. There are two factors explaining this increase in hypertension, which poses a problem at the population level, with medium- to long-term follow-up. “The sugary beverages that we mentioned have a higher sodium content. That is, the sweeteners add this element, which is a factor that’s directly linked to the increase in blood pressure levels.” Another factor that can influence blood pressure is “the increase in insulin secretion that has been described as resulting from sweeteners. In the medium and long term, this is associated with increased blood pressure levels.”
 

Cardiovascular risk factor?

Are artificial sweeteners considered to be a new cardiovascular risk factor? “What they really do is increase the incidence of the other classic risk factors,” including obesity, said Dr. Anguita. It has been shown that artificial sweeteners don’t reduce obesity when used continuously. Nonetheless, “there is still not enough evidence to view it in the same light as the classic risk factors,” added Dr. Anguita. However, it is a factor that can clearly worsen the control of the other factors. Therefore, “it’s appropriate to sound an alarm and explain that it’s not the best way to lose weight; there are many other healthier choices.”

“We need more robust evidence to take a clear position on the use of this type of sweetener and its detrimental effect on health. Meanwhile, it would be ideal to limit their consumption or even avoid adding artificial sweeteners to coffee or teas,” added Dr. Pérez-Martínez.
 

Regulate consumption 

Dr. Pérez-Martínez mentioned that the measures proposed to regulate the consumption of artificial sweeteners and to modify the current legislation must involve “minimizing the consumption of these special dietary products as much as possible and even avoiding adding these artificial sweeteners to the foods that we consume; for example, to coffee and tea.” On the other hand, “we must provide consumers with information that is as clear and simple as possible regarding the composition of the food they consume and how it impacts their health.”

However, “we need more evidence to be able to take a clear position on what type of sweeteners we can consume in our diet and also to what extent we should limit their presence in the foods we consume,” said Dr. Pérez-Martínez. 

Last, “most of the evidence is from short-term observational studies that assess frequencies and patterns of consumption of foods containing these artificial sweeteners.” Of course, “we need studies that specifically analyze their effects at the metabolic level as well as longer-term studies where the nutritional follow-up of participants is more accurate and rigorous, especially when it comes to the consumption of this type of food,” concluded Dr. Gómez-Delgado.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.