Lipid Disorders

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1)/glucagon dual-receptor agonist, BI 456906, being developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma, led to “impressive” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing study of patients with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes – but this is early research.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, presented the study results, including weight loss and adverse events, at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

At the highest tested dose (1.8 mg twice weekly subcutaneous injections), 57% of patients lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 35% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at 16 weeks.

In contrast, among the patients who received a 1-mg semaglutide dose as a comparator, 38% lost at least 5% of their initial body weight and 16% lost at least 10% of their initial body weight at study end.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

This is “very promising data as an anti-obesity compound,” said Dr. Rosenstock, professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The researchers enrolled 411 adults and randomized them into eight groups of roughly 50 patients each.

They compared six doses of BI 456906 (from 0.3 mg/week to 1.8 mg twice weekly) versus 1 mg/week of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) versus placebo.

Patients had a mean initial weight of 97 kg (214 pounds).

After 4 months, on average, patients who received the highest tested dose of BI 456906 lost 9% of their initial weight or roughly 8.7 kg (19 pounds).

Patients who received semaglutide lost 5.4% of their initial weight or roughly 5.2 kg (11.5 pounds), and patients who received placebo lost only 1.2% of their initial weight

The main adverse events were gastrointestinal.
 

‘Exciting data,’ but still early days

“This is very exciting data. It comes from another experienced company with a track record of successful products with a new compound in a class where other related compounds have shown efficacy and safety,” Dan Bessesen, MD, president of The Obesity Society, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“The degree of weight loss is impressive for a 16-week study,” Dr. Bessesen, professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, metabolism and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, added. “The longer-term weight loss will likely be more.”

The side-effect profile is not particularly concerning and is like other drugs in this general class, he said.

However, he also noted a few caveats. This was only a phase 2 study, “so we should not make firm conclusions about efficacy from a study like this, as the number of subjects studied at each dose is relatively small and the follow-up not long.”

In addition, “the dose of semaglutide is the old ‘diabetes’ dose (1 mg) not the weight-loss dose of 2.4 mg or the new diabetes dose of 2 mg. It is not a real comparison with the maximal approved dose of semaglutide. So, we cannot say that it will be better than semaglutide.”

The next hurdle is the “need to see phase 3 studies in a larger group of patients studied for a longer time. Then [the company] will need FDA approval, so it may be a bit of time” before this drug potentially enters the marketplace.

The “bottom line” is that this potential new antiobesity/diabetes drug is “very promising, but [it is] still a little early to say where it ultimately will go.”
 

A1c results presented at EASD

To be included in this study, patients had to be 18-75 years old, have type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 25-50 kg/m², and hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10%, and be stable on metformin therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 57 years, and 57% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, a mean BMI of 34 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

“We just recently reported at the EASD conference last month, the effect of BI 456906 on A1c lowering,” Dr. Rosenstock said.

“It looks like the [drop in] A1c plateaus at 1.9%, which is pretty good when you consider the baseline A1c is around 8%. You get down to around 6%, which is what we regard as a very robust reduction in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin.”

The current analysis showed that patients who received doses of 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 mg/week of the novel drug lost 1.9%, 4.4%, 6.6%, and 6.7% of their initial body weight, respectively, after 16 weeks.

The patients who received 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg twice weekly lost even more weight, 7.2% and 9% of their initial weight, respectively.

At the highest dose, on average, patients lost 13 cm (5 inches) around their waist.

Adverse events were reported by 78% of the patients, most commonly nausea (34% of patients), vomiting (18%), and diarrhea (16%).

Only 1.3% of patients had a drug-related serious adverse event. A total of 16% of patients discontinued the therapy.

Most of the “gastrointestinal adverse events leading the treatment discontinuation were possibly dose and titration related,” Dr. Rosenstock said, “and it’s highly conceivable that for future studies a slower dose escalation may mitigate the occurrence of the gastrointestinal adverse events.”

BI 456906 was coinvented with Zealand Pharma. Under the licensing agreement, Boehringer Ingelheim funds all research, development, and commercialization.

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

SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


SAN DIEGO – Weight loss with tirzepatide was fairly uniform across different body mass index ranges, ages, and number of obesity-related comorbidities in patients with overweight/obesity without type 2 diabetes.

These were the main findings in a session about tirzepatide – the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist – for obesity, presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

In May, tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the SURPASS clinical trials.

Then in June, at the American Diabetes Association 2022 annual meeting, researchers reported “unprecedented” weight loss with tirzepatide in patients without type 2 diabetes, in the phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 clinical trial.

In early October, the FDA granted fast track status (expedited review) to tirzepatide for use as an antiobesity drug.

Now these new analyses from SURMOUNT-1 show that “regardless of BMI, regardless of age, regardless of number of obesity-related complications, there was a clear dose-related weight loss that was pretty consistent across groups,” Session Chair Patrick M. O’Neil, PhD, who was not involved with this research, summarized.

“The absolute levels of these weight losses are higher than we’ve seen thus far with [antiobesity] medications,” added Dr. O’Neil, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Weight Management Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Semaglutide took things up one big notch, and this is up a little notch above that,” he said in an interview.

“I’m a psychologist. It should be remembered that in all cases, the FDA approvals are predicated to using [drugs] as an adjunct to diet and exercise change as well,” he stressed.

“I don’t think people should expect that any medication that is currently available will have a lasting effect when it’s no longer taken,” he continued.

“We don’t expect any of these [antiobesity] medications to be making any permanent physiological changes,” Dr. O’Neil added, but patients could “use this medication to help themselves make some long-lasting behavioral changes, so that when they come off the medication, hopefully they’ll be able to continue these new patterns.

“Clearly the medications are having a significant impact,” he emphasized.
 

BMI, age, comorbidity subgroups, and overall QoL in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-1 compared the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10, and 15 mg subcutaneous once-weekly to placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The study included 2,539 adults without type 2 diabetes who had obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one obesity-related complication (hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease).

Age subgroups

Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that “Excessive lean mass loss is a clinical concern in elderly individuals being treated for obesity,” so it’s important to know if weight loss with tirzepatide differs by age.

The researchers performed a post hoc analysis in patients who had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) readings at baseline and week 72 (oral abstract 109).

The three age groups in the current analysis were < 50 years old (99 patients), ≥ 50 to < 65 years old (41 patients), and ≥ 65 years old (20 patients). Overall, 63% of patients were age < 50 years, 31% were age 50 to < 65 years, and 6% were ≥ 65 years.

At 72 weeks, patients taking 5, 10, and 15 mg/week tirzepatide lost 21.5%, 20.8%, and 22% of their initial body weight, respectively.

“Tirzepatide significantly lowered total body mass versus placebo regardless of age subgroups,” and it “consistently lowered fat mass, lean mass, fat-mass-to-lean-mass ratio, and visceral fat mass across age subgroups,” Dr. Kushner reported.
 

BMI subgroups

Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, presented findings from a prespecified analysis of BMI subgroups (oral abstract 110).

The four BMI subgroups were:

• ≥ 27 to < 30 kg/m² (overweight), mean initial weight 178 pounds, mean weight reduction 29-30 pounds
• ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), mean initial weight 198 pounds, mean weight reduction 33-43 pounds
• 35 to < 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), mean initial weight 228 pounds, mean reduction 34-56 pounds
• 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity), mean initial weight 280 pounds, mean weight reduction 44-64 pounds

Patients with an initial BMI of ≥ 35 to < 40 kg/m² who received the 15-mg/week dose of tirzepatide had the greatest weight loss, at 24.5%, which is approximately what is seen with bariatric surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (25%).

The proportion of patients reaching ≥ 5% weight reduction was approximately 90% in all weight categories. “These numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Aronne.

In addition, overall, 73%-90% of patients receiving the 5- to 15-mg doses of tirzepatide achieved ≥ 10% body weight reduction, and “something we never thought we would see” is that 50%-78% of the patients receiving the drug lost 15% or more of their body weight.

In reply to an audience question, Dr. Aronne said it would take further study to determine who would respond well to tirzepatide.

And in reply to another question about whether it would make sense to treat to a target of a normal BMI, he said: “I think we are getting there.”

Patients in the 27- to 30-kg/m² BMI category lost about the same amount of weight at a 5-mg dose as at a higher dose, suggesting they should stick to the lower dose, which would likely also have fewer side effects, he noted.
 

Number of comorbidities

Comorbidities in SURMOUNT-1 included hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety/depression, polycystic ovary syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the patients with no comorbidities, 32.6% had prediabetes (oral abstract 111).

Sriram Machineni, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of clustering of at least two obesity-related complications, but little is known about how this affects outcomes. 

The patients in SURMOUNT-1 were classified into three groups based on number of comorbidities:

• Zero comorbidities, 37% of patients: baseline mean age of 39, mean duration of obesity of 12 years, 29% men
• One comorbidity, 27% of patients: baseline mean age of 44, mean duration of obesity of 14 years, 31% men
• Two or more comorbidities, 36% of patients: baseline mean age of 52, duration of obesity 17 years, 37% men

Regardless of the number of comorbidities, all doses of tirzepatide resulted in a greater reduction in body weight compared with placebo.
 

Quality of life

Jiat Ling Poon, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, presented findings from patient-reported replies to questionnaires including Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite (IWQOL-Lite), which assesses physical and psychosocial health, and the Short Form–36 Health Survey, which assesses physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, general health, social functioning, and mental health (oral abstract 112).

Tirzepatide at all doses resulted in significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo.

Meanwhile, the phase 3 SURMOUNT-2 clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes is projected to be completed in April 2023.  

The studies were funded by Eli Lilly.

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


CHICAGO – None of six commercial dietary supplements widely promoted and taken for lowering LDL cholesterol did the job any better than placebo in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.

In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.

The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.

The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.

“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.

Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.

“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.

They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.

Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
 

How to message the results

The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.

But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”

The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”

At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.

“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.

“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”

But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”

In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”

SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
 

High adherence

Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.

They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.

The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).

Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.

Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.

Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.

None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.

There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”

Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.

Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – None of six commercial dietary supplements widely promoted and taken for lowering LDL cholesterol did the job any better than placebo in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.

In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.

The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.

The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.

“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.

Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.

“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.

They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.

Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
 

How to message the results

The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.

But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”

The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”

At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.

“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.

“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”

But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”

In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”

SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
 

High adherence

Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.

They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.

The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).

Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.

Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.

Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.

None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.

There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”

Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.

Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – None of six commercial dietary supplements widely promoted and taken for lowering LDL cholesterol did the job any better than placebo in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.

In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.

The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.

The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.

“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.

Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.

“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.

They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.

Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
 

How to message the results

The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.

But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”

The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”

At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.

“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.

“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”

But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”

In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”

SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
 

High adherence

Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.

They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.

The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).

Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.

Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.

Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.

None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.

There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”

Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.

Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Japanese study of highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; icosapent ethyl) has suggested a possible benefit in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease taking statins.

The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. 

However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.  

Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.

Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.

“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”

However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT. 

“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).  

In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease. 

Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.

Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.

The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.

They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.

The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.

The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).

The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.  

Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.

The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).

The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).

In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.

In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).

Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
 

‘Massive loss’ of patients

Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.

“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented. 

“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.

The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”  

On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
 

Supportive data

But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.

“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.  

“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.  

He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.  

“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
 

Magnitude of benefit uncertain?

Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”

“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.

Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”

She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.

The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.

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

A new Japanese study of highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; icosapent ethyl) has suggested a possible benefit in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease taking statins.

The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. 

However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.  

Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.

Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.

“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”

However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT. 

“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).  

In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease. 

Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.

Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.

The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.

They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.

The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.

The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).

The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.  

Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.

The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).

The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).

In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.

In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).

Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
 

‘Massive loss’ of patients

Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.

“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented. 

“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.

The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”  

On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
 

Supportive data

But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.

“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.  

“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.  

He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.  

“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
 

Magnitude of benefit uncertain?

Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”

“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.

Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”

She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.

The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.

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

A new Japanese study of highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; icosapent ethyl) has suggested a possible benefit in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease taking statins.

The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. 

However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.  

Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.

Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.

“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”

However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT. 

“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).  

In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease. 

Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.

Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.

The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.

They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.

The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.

The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).

The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.  

Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.

The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).

The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).

In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.

In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).

Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
 

‘Massive loss’ of patients

Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.

“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented. 

“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.

The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”  

On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
 

Supportive data

But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.

“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.  

“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.  

He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.  

“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
 

Magnitude of benefit uncertain?

Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”

“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.

Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”

She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.

The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.

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

CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.

The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.

Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
 

Strategy is simple but effective

Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.

After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.

In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
 

cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care

In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.

Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.

Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).

In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.

Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.

New protocol called preferred approach

On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”

Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.

Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”

Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.

In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.

Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.

The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.

Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
 

Strategy is simple but effective

Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.

After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.

In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
 

cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care

In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.

Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.

Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).

In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.

Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.

New protocol called preferred approach

On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”

Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.

Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”

Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.

In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.

Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.

The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.

Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
 

Strategy is simple but effective

Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.

After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.

In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
 

cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care

In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.

Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.

Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).

In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.

Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.

New protocol called preferred approach

On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”

Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.

Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”

Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.

In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.

Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.

During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
 

Nil probability of a survival benefit

“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.

The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.

While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.

Follow-up without adjudication

The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.

The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.

However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.

“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.

Staying alive is what patients care about

“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.

“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”

But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.

“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
 

Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management

After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.

“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”

To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.

ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.






 

CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.

During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
 

Nil probability of a survival benefit

“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.

The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.

While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.

Follow-up without adjudication

The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.

The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.

However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.

“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.

Staying alive is what patients care about

“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.

“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”

But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.

“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
 

Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management

After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.

“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”

To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.

ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.






 

CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.

During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
 

Nil probability of a survival benefit

“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.

The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.

While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.

Follow-up without adjudication

The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.

The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.

However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.

“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.

Staying alive is what patients care about

“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.

“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”

But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.

“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
 

Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management

After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.

“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”

To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.

ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.






 

There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.

There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.

However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.

Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”

But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”

“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”

Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Pragmatic study

The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.

“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”

Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.

Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.

In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).

There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.

In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
 

Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?

In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).

“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”

He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”

Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.

“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”

Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”

Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.

She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.

“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.

Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.

He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”

Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.

These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.

The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.

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

There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.

There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.

However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.

Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”

But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”

“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”

Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Pragmatic study

The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.

“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”

Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.

Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.

In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).

There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.

In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
 

Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?

In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).

“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”

He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”

Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.

“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”

Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”

Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.

She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.

“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.

Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.

He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”

Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.

These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.

The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.

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

There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.

There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.

However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.

Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”

But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”

“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”

Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Pragmatic study

The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.

“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”

Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.

Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.

In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).

There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.

In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
 

Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?

In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).

“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”

He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”

Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.

“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”

Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”

Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.

She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.

“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.

Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.

He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”

Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.

These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.

The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era

“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Lipid profile improved as predicted

Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.

Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.

The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.

The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.

He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.

“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.

Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.

Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.

CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era

“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Lipid profile improved as predicted

Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.

Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.

The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.

The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.

He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.

“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.

Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.

Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.

CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era

“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Lipid profile improved as predicted

Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.

Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.

The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.

The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.

He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.

“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.

Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.

Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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