Video

CHICAGO – Home BP monitoring has proved its worth, and it’s now time to integrate it into health care and get insurers to pay for it, according to Hayden Bosworth, PhD, a population health sciences professor and health services researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The devices are on the shelves of pharmacies and discount stores nationwide, sometimes for less than $50, but what to do with them in the clinic hasn’t been worked out. It’s likely patients are soon going to want help interpreting the results, if they aren’t already, but a leap in technology has left clinicians and payors scratching their heads.

There’s more than enough evidence of benefit. Dr. Bosworth has been involved with several trials of home BP monitoring with good results. He was one of the many authors on a recent meta-analysis that found when patients check their BP at home, it can lead to a “clinically significant” reduction “which persists for at least 12 months” (PLoS Med. 2017 Sep 19;14[9]:e1002389).

“Are we talking about efficacy or proof of concept? I think we are beyond that. Now we have to think about how we put it into the system, how do we integrate it, what’s the best way of delivery. I think that’s where the future is,” he said in an interview at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

Home monitoring came up far more often at this year’s joint sessions than in 2017, which might indicate growing interest, but reimbursement remains a challenge. American Medical Association staff said at this year’s meeting that they are working with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for coverage of the devices and their use. It seemed likely to them.

In the meantime, Dr. Bosworth had some useful advice for those who are thinking about incorporating home BP monitoring into their practices.

He shared his tips on how to pick out a device – there’s actually a journal called Blood Pressure Monitoring that can help – as well as his thoughts on how often people should monitor themselves and what to do with the numbers.

He envisions a future when patients routinely check their BP at home; it’s even possible they could adjust their medications based on the results, much like diabetes patients track their blood glucose and adjust their insulin. It’s been shown to work in Britain (JAMA. 2014 Aug 27;312[8]:799-808).

Dr. Bosworth reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Home BP monitoring has proved its worth, and it’s now time to integrate it into health care and get insurers to pay for it, according to Hayden Bosworth, PhD, a population health sciences professor and health services researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The devices are on the shelves of pharmacies and discount stores nationwide, sometimes for less than $50, but what to do with them in the clinic hasn’t been worked out. It’s likely patients are soon going to want help interpreting the results, if they aren’t already, but a leap in technology has left clinicians and payors scratching their heads.

There’s more than enough evidence of benefit. Dr. Bosworth has been involved with several trials of home BP monitoring with good results. He was one of the many authors on a recent meta-analysis that found when patients check their BP at home, it can lead to a “clinically significant” reduction “which persists for at least 12 months” (PLoS Med. 2017 Sep 19;14[9]:e1002389).

“Are we talking about efficacy or proof of concept? I think we are beyond that. Now we have to think about how we put it into the system, how do we integrate it, what’s the best way of delivery. I think that’s where the future is,” he said in an interview at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

Home monitoring came up far more often at this year’s joint sessions than in 2017, which might indicate growing interest, but reimbursement remains a challenge. American Medical Association staff said at this year’s meeting that they are working with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for coverage of the devices and their use. It seemed likely to them.

In the meantime, Dr. Bosworth had some useful advice for those who are thinking about incorporating home BP monitoring into their practices.

He shared his tips on how to pick out a device – there’s actually a journal called Blood Pressure Monitoring that can help – as well as his thoughts on how often people should monitor themselves and what to do with the numbers.

He envisions a future when patients routinely check their BP at home; it’s even possible they could adjust their medications based on the results, much like diabetes patients track their blood glucose and adjust their insulin. It’s been shown to work in Britain (JAMA. 2014 Aug 27;312[8]:799-808).

Dr. Bosworth reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Home BP monitoring has proved its worth, and it’s now time to integrate it into health care and get insurers to pay for it, according to Hayden Bosworth, PhD, a population health sciences professor and health services researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The devices are on the shelves of pharmacies and discount stores nationwide, sometimes for less than $50, but what to do with them in the clinic hasn’t been worked out. It’s likely patients are soon going to want help interpreting the results, if they aren’t already, but a leap in technology has left clinicians and payors scratching their heads.

There’s more than enough evidence of benefit. Dr. Bosworth has been involved with several trials of home BP monitoring with good results. He was one of the many authors on a recent meta-analysis that found when patients check their BP at home, it can lead to a “clinically significant” reduction “which persists for at least 12 months” (PLoS Med. 2017 Sep 19;14[9]:e1002389).

“Are we talking about efficacy or proof of concept? I think we are beyond that. Now we have to think about how we put it into the system, how do we integrate it, what’s the best way of delivery. I think that’s where the future is,” he said in an interview at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

Home monitoring came up far more often at this year’s joint sessions than in 2017, which might indicate growing interest, but reimbursement remains a challenge. American Medical Association staff said at this year’s meeting that they are working with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for coverage of the devices and their use. It seemed likely to them.

In the meantime, Dr. Bosworth had some useful advice for those who are thinking about incorporating home BP monitoring into their practices.

He shared his tips on how to pick out a device – there’s actually a journal called Blood Pressure Monitoring that can help – as well as his thoughts on how often people should monitor themselves and what to do with the numbers.

He envisions a future when patients routinely check their BP at home; it’s even possible they could adjust their medications based on the results, much like diabetes patients track their blood glucose and adjust their insulin. It’s been shown to work in Britain (JAMA. 2014 Aug 27;312[8]:799-808).

Dr. Bosworth reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

MUNICH – The “overwhelming impression” that Paul K. Whelton, MD, has of the newly revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology is their similarity to hypertension guidelines released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in November 2017.

“We both recommend the same treatment target, of less than 130/80 mm Hg,” noted Dr. Whelton, professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, although the European guidelines (Euro J Cardiology. 2018 Sep 1; 39[33]:3021-104) put more qualifications on this target and specify treating to no lower than 130 mm Hg systolic pressure in patients who are at least 65 years old as well as in patients with chronic kidney disease at any age. In a video interview, Dr. Whelton also cited areas of disagreement, such as how patients with an untreated blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg are classified (high normal in the European guidelines, stage 1 hypertension in the U.S. guidelines), and whether initial drug monotherapy is a reasonable treatment strategy (U.S. says yes, Europe says no).

Dr. Whelton noted that recent modeling studies have documented the potential public health benefits from following the diagnosis and management approaches set forth in the 2017 U.S. guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248). For example, an analysis based on data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2013-2016 showed that following the 2017 guidelines for diagnosing and treating hypertension would have resulted in prevention of more than twice the number of cardiovascular disease events nationally as compared with application of the prior, 2014 U.S. hypertension guideline (JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311[5]:507-20): 610,000 events prevented, compared with 270,000 events prevented. The same study showed that the 2017 guidelines would have nearly doubled the number of all-cause deaths prevented, with 334,000 deaths prevented, compared with 177,000 prevented by applying the 2014 guidelines (JAMA Cardiology. 2018 July;3[7]:572-81).

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

MUNICH – The “overwhelming impression” that Paul K. Whelton, MD, has of the newly revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology is their similarity to hypertension guidelines released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in November 2017.

“We both recommend the same treatment target, of less than 130/80 mm Hg,” noted Dr. Whelton, professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, although the European guidelines (Euro J Cardiology. 2018 Sep 1; 39[33]:3021-104) put more qualifications on this target and specify treating to no lower than 130 mm Hg systolic pressure in patients who are at least 65 years old as well as in patients with chronic kidney disease at any age. In a video interview, Dr. Whelton also cited areas of disagreement, such as how patients with an untreated blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg are classified (high normal in the European guidelines, stage 1 hypertension in the U.S. guidelines), and whether initial drug monotherapy is a reasonable treatment strategy (U.S. says yes, Europe says no).

Dr. Whelton noted that recent modeling studies have documented the potential public health benefits from following the diagnosis and management approaches set forth in the 2017 U.S. guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248). For example, an analysis based on data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2013-2016 showed that following the 2017 guidelines for diagnosing and treating hypertension would have resulted in prevention of more than twice the number of cardiovascular disease events nationally as compared with application of the prior, 2014 U.S. hypertension guideline (JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311[5]:507-20): 610,000 events prevented, compared with 270,000 events prevented. The same study showed that the 2017 guidelines would have nearly doubled the number of all-cause deaths prevented, with 334,000 deaths prevented, compared with 177,000 prevented by applying the 2014 guidelines (JAMA Cardiology. 2018 July;3[7]:572-81).

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

MUNICH – The “overwhelming impression” that Paul K. Whelton, MD, has of the newly revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology is their similarity to hypertension guidelines released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in November 2017.

“We both recommend the same treatment target, of less than 130/80 mm Hg,” noted Dr. Whelton, professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, although the European guidelines (Euro J Cardiology. 2018 Sep 1; 39[33]:3021-104) put more qualifications on this target and specify treating to no lower than 130 mm Hg systolic pressure in patients who are at least 65 years old as well as in patients with chronic kidney disease at any age. In a video interview, Dr. Whelton also cited areas of disagreement, such as how patients with an untreated blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg are classified (high normal in the European guidelines, stage 1 hypertension in the U.S. guidelines), and whether initial drug monotherapy is a reasonable treatment strategy (U.S. says yes, Europe says no).

Dr. Whelton noted that recent modeling studies have documented the potential public health benefits from following the diagnosis and management approaches set forth in the 2017 U.S. guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248). For example, an analysis based on data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2013-2016 showed that following the 2017 guidelines for diagnosing and treating hypertension would have resulted in prevention of more than twice the number of cardiovascular disease events nationally as compared with application of the prior, 2014 U.S. hypertension guideline (JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311[5]:507-20): 610,000 events prevented, compared with 270,000 events prevented. The same study showed that the 2017 guidelines would have nearly doubled the number of all-cause deaths prevented, with 334,000 deaths prevented, compared with 177,000 prevented by applying the 2014 guidelines (JAMA Cardiology. 2018 July;3[7]:572-81).

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

MUNICH – The European Society of Cardiology joined other international cardiology groups in endorsing lower targets for blood pressure treatment and lower pressure thresholds for starting drug treatment in its revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines released in August during the Society’s annual congress here.

“Provided that treatment is well tolerated, treated blood pressure should be targeted to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in most patients,” Giuseppe Mancia, MD, said as he and his colleagues presented the new guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the new European guidelines further buttress this more aggressive approach to blood pressure management that first appeared almost a year ago in U.S. guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, an approach that remains controversial among U.S. primary care physicians, the European strategy (Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39[33]:3021-104) was generally more cautious than the broader endorsement of lower blood pressure goals advanced by the U.S. recommendations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248).

In the European approach, “the first objective is to treat to less than 140/90 mm Hg. If this is well tolerated, then treat to less than 130/80 mm Hg in most patients,” said Dr. Mancia, cochair of the European writing panel. Further pressure reductions to less than 130/80 mm Hg are usually harder, the incremental benefit from further reduction is less than when pressures first fall below 140/90 mm Hg, and the evidence for incremental benefit of any size from further pressure reduction is less strong for certain key patient subgroups: people at least 80 years old, and patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or coronary artery disease, said Dr. Mancia, an emeritus professor at the University of Milan.

“The consistency between two major guidelines is important, but there are differences that may look subtle but are not subtle,” he said in a video interview. “If a patient gets to less than 140 mm Hg, the doctor should not think that’s a failure; it’s a very important result.”

One striking example of how the two guidelines differ on treatment targets is for people at least 80 years old. The overall blood pressure threshold for starting drug treatment in patients this age in the European guidelines is 160/90 mm Hg, although it remains at 140/90 for people aged 65-79 years old “provided that treatment is well tolerated” and the patients are “fit.” The 2017 U.S. guidelines, by contrast, say that considering drug treatment for everyone with a pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg is a class I recommendation regardless of age as long as the person is “noninstitutionalized, ambulatory, [and] community-dwelling.” Once an older patient of any age, 65 years or older, starts drug treatment to reduce blood pressure, the European guidelines allow for treating to a target systolic blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg as long as the regimen is well tolerated, and the guidelines say that a diastolic pressure target of less than 80 mm Hg should be considered for all adults regardless of age.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new European guidelines also define adults with an untreated pressure of 130-139/85-89 mm Hg as “high normal,” rather than the “stage 1 hypertension” designation given to people with pressures of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg in the U.S. guidelines. Robert M. Carey, MD, vice chair of the U.S. guidelines panel, minimized this as a “semantic” difference, and he highlighted that management of people with pressures in this range is roughly similar in the two sets of recommendations. “The name is different, but treatment is the same,” Dr. Carey said.

The European guidelines call for initial lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment “that may be considered” for patients who have “very-high” cardiovascular risk because of established cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease, and detail the specific clinical conditions that fall into the very-high-risk category. The U.S. guidelines say that stage 1 hypertension patients should get lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment for the roughly 30% of patients in this category who score at least a 10% 10-year risk on the American College of Cardiology’s Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator Plus.The new European guidelines are a “validation” of the ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines, commented Dr. Carey, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “Overall, we’re delighted to have these two major groups” agree, he said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount of concurrence.”

Other areas of agreement between the two guidelines include their emphasis on careful and repeated blood pressure measurement, including out-of-office measurement, before settling on a diagnosis of hypertension; systematic assessment of possible masked or white-coat hypertension in selected people; and frequent use of combined drug treatment including initiation of a dual-drug, single-pill regimen when starting drug treatment and aggressive follow-up by adding a third drug when needed. However, in another divergence the U.S. guidelines give a much stronger endorsement to starting treatment with monotherapy, a strategy the European guidelines scrapped.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Carey also noted that the European endorsement of three antihypertensives formulated into a single pill for patients who need more than two drugs would be difficult for American clinicians to follow as virtually no such formulations are approved for U.S. use.

Dr. Mancini has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Medtronic, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, and Servier. Dr. Williams has been a consultant to Novartis, Relypsa, and Vascular Dynamics, and he has spoken on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Carey and Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

MUNICH – The European Society of Cardiology joined other international cardiology groups in endorsing lower targets for blood pressure treatment and lower pressure thresholds for starting drug treatment in its revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines released in August during the Society’s annual congress here.

“Provided that treatment is well tolerated, treated blood pressure should be targeted to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in most patients,” Giuseppe Mancia, MD, said as he and his colleagues presented the new guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the new European guidelines further buttress this more aggressive approach to blood pressure management that first appeared almost a year ago in U.S. guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, an approach that remains controversial among U.S. primary care physicians, the European strategy (Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39[33]:3021-104) was generally more cautious than the broader endorsement of lower blood pressure goals advanced by the U.S. recommendations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248).

In the European approach, “the first objective is to treat to less than 140/90 mm Hg. If this is well tolerated, then treat to less than 130/80 mm Hg in most patients,” said Dr. Mancia, cochair of the European writing panel. Further pressure reductions to less than 130/80 mm Hg are usually harder, the incremental benefit from further reduction is less than when pressures first fall below 140/90 mm Hg, and the evidence for incremental benefit of any size from further pressure reduction is less strong for certain key patient subgroups: people at least 80 years old, and patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or coronary artery disease, said Dr. Mancia, an emeritus professor at the University of Milan.

“The consistency between two major guidelines is important, but there are differences that may look subtle but are not subtle,” he said in a video interview. “If a patient gets to less than 140 mm Hg, the doctor should not think that’s a failure; it’s a very important result.”

One striking example of how the two guidelines differ on treatment targets is for people at least 80 years old. The overall blood pressure threshold for starting drug treatment in patients this age in the European guidelines is 160/90 mm Hg, although it remains at 140/90 for people aged 65-79 years old “provided that treatment is well tolerated” and the patients are “fit.” The 2017 U.S. guidelines, by contrast, say that considering drug treatment for everyone with a pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg is a class I recommendation regardless of age as long as the person is “noninstitutionalized, ambulatory, [and] community-dwelling.” Once an older patient of any age, 65 years or older, starts drug treatment to reduce blood pressure, the European guidelines allow for treating to a target systolic blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg as long as the regimen is well tolerated, and the guidelines say that a diastolic pressure target of less than 80 mm Hg should be considered for all adults regardless of age.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new European guidelines also define adults with an untreated pressure of 130-139/85-89 mm Hg as “high normal,” rather than the “stage 1 hypertension” designation given to people with pressures of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg in the U.S. guidelines. Robert M. Carey, MD, vice chair of the U.S. guidelines panel, minimized this as a “semantic” difference, and he highlighted that management of people with pressures in this range is roughly similar in the two sets of recommendations. “The name is different, but treatment is the same,” Dr. Carey said.

The European guidelines call for initial lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment “that may be considered” for patients who have “very-high” cardiovascular risk because of established cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease, and detail the specific clinical conditions that fall into the very-high-risk category. The U.S. guidelines say that stage 1 hypertension patients should get lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment for the roughly 30% of patients in this category who score at least a 10% 10-year risk on the American College of Cardiology’s Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator Plus.The new European guidelines are a “validation” of the ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines, commented Dr. Carey, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “Overall, we’re delighted to have these two major groups” agree, he said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount of concurrence.”

Other areas of agreement between the two guidelines include their emphasis on careful and repeated blood pressure measurement, including out-of-office measurement, before settling on a diagnosis of hypertension; systematic assessment of possible masked or white-coat hypertension in selected people; and frequent use of combined drug treatment including initiation of a dual-drug, single-pill regimen when starting drug treatment and aggressive follow-up by adding a third drug when needed. However, in another divergence the U.S. guidelines give a much stronger endorsement to starting treatment with monotherapy, a strategy the European guidelines scrapped.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Carey also noted that the European endorsement of three antihypertensives formulated into a single pill for patients who need more than two drugs would be difficult for American clinicians to follow as virtually no such formulations are approved for U.S. use.

Dr. Mancini has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Medtronic, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, and Servier. Dr. Williams has been a consultant to Novartis, Relypsa, and Vascular Dynamics, and he has spoken on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Carey and Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

MUNICH – The European Society of Cardiology joined other international cardiology groups in endorsing lower targets for blood pressure treatment and lower pressure thresholds for starting drug treatment in its revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines released in August during the Society’s annual congress here.

“Provided that treatment is well tolerated, treated blood pressure should be targeted to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in most patients,” Giuseppe Mancia, MD, said as he and his colleagues presented the new guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the new European guidelines further buttress this more aggressive approach to blood pressure management that first appeared almost a year ago in U.S. guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, an approach that remains controversial among U.S. primary care physicians, the European strategy (Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39[33]:3021-104) was generally more cautious than the broader endorsement of lower blood pressure goals advanced by the U.S. recommendations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248).

In the European approach, “the first objective is to treat to less than 140/90 mm Hg. If this is well tolerated, then treat to less than 130/80 mm Hg in most patients,” said Dr. Mancia, cochair of the European writing panel. Further pressure reductions to less than 130/80 mm Hg are usually harder, the incremental benefit from further reduction is less than when pressures first fall below 140/90 mm Hg, and the evidence for incremental benefit of any size from further pressure reduction is less strong for certain key patient subgroups: people at least 80 years old, and patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or coronary artery disease, said Dr. Mancia, an emeritus professor at the University of Milan.

“The consistency between two major guidelines is important, but there are differences that may look subtle but are not subtle,” he said in a video interview. “If a patient gets to less than 140 mm Hg, the doctor should not think that’s a failure; it’s a very important result.”

One striking example of how the two guidelines differ on treatment targets is for people at least 80 years old. The overall blood pressure threshold for starting drug treatment in patients this age in the European guidelines is 160/90 mm Hg, although it remains at 140/90 for people aged 65-79 years old “provided that treatment is well tolerated” and the patients are “fit.” The 2017 U.S. guidelines, by contrast, say that considering drug treatment for everyone with a pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg is a class I recommendation regardless of age as long as the person is “noninstitutionalized, ambulatory, [and] community-dwelling.” Once an older patient of any age, 65 years or older, starts drug treatment to reduce blood pressure, the European guidelines allow for treating to a target systolic blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg as long as the regimen is well tolerated, and the guidelines say that a diastolic pressure target of less than 80 mm Hg should be considered for all adults regardless of age.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new European guidelines also define adults with an untreated pressure of 130-139/85-89 mm Hg as “high normal,” rather than the “stage 1 hypertension” designation given to people with pressures of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg in the U.S. guidelines. Robert M. Carey, MD, vice chair of the U.S. guidelines panel, minimized this as a “semantic” difference, and he highlighted that management of people with pressures in this range is roughly similar in the two sets of recommendations. “The name is different, but treatment is the same,” Dr. Carey said.

The European guidelines call for initial lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment “that may be considered” for patients who have “very-high” cardiovascular risk because of established cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease, and detail the specific clinical conditions that fall into the very-high-risk category. The U.S. guidelines say that stage 1 hypertension patients should get lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment for the roughly 30% of patients in this category who score at least a 10% 10-year risk on the American College of Cardiology’s Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator Plus.The new European guidelines are a “validation” of the ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines, commented Dr. Carey, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “Overall, we’re delighted to have these two major groups” agree, he said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount of concurrence.”

Other areas of agreement between the two guidelines include their emphasis on careful and repeated blood pressure measurement, including out-of-office measurement, before settling on a diagnosis of hypertension; systematic assessment of possible masked or white-coat hypertension in selected people; and frequent use of combined drug treatment including initiation of a dual-drug, single-pill regimen when starting drug treatment and aggressive follow-up by adding a third drug when needed. However, in another divergence the U.S. guidelines give a much stronger endorsement to starting treatment with monotherapy, a strategy the European guidelines scrapped.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Carey also noted that the European endorsement of three antihypertensives formulated into a single pill for patients who need more than two drugs would be difficult for American clinicians to follow as virtually no such formulations are approved for U.S. use.

Dr. Mancini has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Medtronic, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, and Servier. Dr. Williams has been a consultant to Novartis, Relypsa, and Vascular Dynamics, and he has spoken on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Carey and Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Citation: Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al; for the Eunice Kennedy Schriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–523. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.

Citation: Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al; for the Eunice Kennedy Schriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–523. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.

Citation: Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al; for the Eunice Kennedy Schriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–523. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.

Click here to view the articles published in September 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in September 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in September 2018.

For the pancreatobiliary session, Michelle Ann Anderson, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reminded us about appropriate patient selection given the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, also known as post-ERCP pancreatitis. Strategies to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis include using pancreatic duct stents and using wire rather than contrast for cannulation. She recommended rectal indomethacin for all patients. Because of encouraging data, she recommended 2-3 L of lactated Ringer’s solution during the procedure and recovery. 

Katie Morgan, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, reviewed her group’s experience with 195 total pancreatectomies with islet autotransplants for chronic pancreatitis. Quality of life improved with major reductions in narcotic use, and 25% of patients were insulin free. 

Bret Petersen, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., discussed multidrug resistant infection in ERCP endoscopes. He reminded us of the risk of lapses in endoscope reprocessing steps and the need for monitoring. He commented on recent Food and Drug Administration’s culture guidance and new technologies in development. 

James Scheiman, MD, from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, discussed pancreatic cysts. He reviewed the controversy between the more conservative American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and the more aggressive International Consensus guidelines. He advised considering patient preferences with a multidisciplinary approach.
For the liver session, Guadalupe García-Tsao, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., discussed the controversy regarding nonselective beta-blockers. She advised caution if refractory ascites are present because of risk for renal dysfunction, but she also highlighted the benefits including reduced first and recurrent variceal hemorrhage. 

Rohit Loomba, MD, from the University of California at San Diego addressed fibrosis assessments in fatty liver. In his algorithm, patients with low Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Fibrosis Score or Fibrosis-4 scores would have continued observation, while patients with medium or high scores would undergo transient elastography or magnetic resonance elastography. 

Patrick Northup, MD, from the University of Virginia discussed anticoagulation for portal vein thrombosis. He also discussed consideration of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt if there are high-risk varices. Duration of anticoagulation is controversial, but this strategy may prevent decompensation and affect transplant outcomes. 

Daryl Lau, MD, MSc, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, reviewed the hepatitis B virus therapy controversy for e-antigen–negative patients with prolonged viral suppression. She recommended caution in general and emphasized that stage 3-4 fibrosis patients should not discontinue therapy. 

The final talk was my review of hepatitis C virus treatment. I emphasized that pretreatment fibrosis assessments are critical given continued risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after cure. Challenges include identifying the remaining patients and supporting them through treatment. HCV therapies demonstrate what is possible when breakthroughs are translated to clinical care, and I was honored to participate in this course that highlighted many advances in our field.

Dr. Muir is a professor of medicine, director of gastroenterology & hepatology research at Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chief of the division of gastroenterology in the department of medicine at Duke University, all in Durham, N.C. He has received research grants from and served on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

For the pancreatobiliary session, Michelle Ann Anderson, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reminded us about appropriate patient selection given the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, also known as post-ERCP pancreatitis. Strategies to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis include using pancreatic duct stents and using wire rather than contrast for cannulation. She recommended rectal indomethacin for all patients. Because of encouraging data, she recommended 2-3 L of lactated Ringer’s solution during the procedure and recovery. 

Katie Morgan, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, reviewed her group’s experience with 195 total pancreatectomies with islet autotransplants for chronic pancreatitis. Quality of life improved with major reductions in narcotic use, and 25% of patients were insulin free. 

Bret Petersen, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., discussed multidrug resistant infection in ERCP endoscopes. He reminded us of the risk of lapses in endoscope reprocessing steps and the need for monitoring. He commented on recent Food and Drug Administration’s culture guidance and new technologies in development. 

James Scheiman, MD, from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, discussed pancreatic cysts. He reviewed the controversy between the more conservative American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and the more aggressive International Consensus guidelines. He advised considering patient preferences with a multidisciplinary approach.
For the liver session, Guadalupe García-Tsao, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., discussed the controversy regarding nonselective beta-blockers. She advised caution if refractory ascites are present because of risk for renal dysfunction, but she also highlighted the benefits including reduced first and recurrent variceal hemorrhage. 

Rohit Loomba, MD, from the University of California at San Diego addressed fibrosis assessments in fatty liver. In his algorithm, patients with low Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Fibrosis Score or Fibrosis-4 scores would have continued observation, while patients with medium or high scores would undergo transient elastography or magnetic resonance elastography. 

Patrick Northup, MD, from the University of Virginia discussed anticoagulation for portal vein thrombosis. He also discussed consideration of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt if there are high-risk varices. Duration of anticoagulation is controversial, but this strategy may prevent decompensation and affect transplant outcomes. 

Daryl Lau, MD, MSc, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, reviewed the hepatitis B virus therapy controversy for e-antigen–negative patients with prolonged viral suppression. She recommended caution in general and emphasized that stage 3-4 fibrosis patients should not discontinue therapy. 

The final talk was my review of hepatitis C virus treatment. I emphasized that pretreatment fibrosis assessments are critical given continued risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after cure. Challenges include identifying the remaining patients and supporting them through treatment. HCV therapies demonstrate what is possible when breakthroughs are translated to clinical care, and I was honored to participate in this course that highlighted many advances in our field.

Dr. Muir is a professor of medicine, director of gastroenterology & hepatology research at Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chief of the division of gastroenterology in the department of medicine at Duke University, all in Durham, N.C. He has received research grants from and served on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

For the pancreatobiliary session, Michelle Ann Anderson, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reminded us about appropriate patient selection given the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, also known as post-ERCP pancreatitis. Strategies to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis include using pancreatic duct stents and using wire rather than contrast for cannulation. She recommended rectal indomethacin for all patients. Because of encouraging data, she recommended 2-3 L of lactated Ringer’s solution during the procedure and recovery. 

Katie Morgan, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, reviewed her group’s experience with 195 total pancreatectomies with islet autotransplants for chronic pancreatitis. Quality of life improved with major reductions in narcotic use, and 25% of patients were insulin free. 

Bret Petersen, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., discussed multidrug resistant infection in ERCP endoscopes. He reminded us of the risk of lapses in endoscope reprocessing steps and the need for monitoring. He commented on recent Food and Drug Administration’s culture guidance and new technologies in development. 

James Scheiman, MD, from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, discussed pancreatic cysts. He reviewed the controversy between the more conservative American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and the more aggressive International Consensus guidelines. He advised considering patient preferences with a multidisciplinary approach.
For the liver session, Guadalupe García-Tsao, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., discussed the controversy regarding nonselective beta-blockers. She advised caution if refractory ascites are present because of risk for renal dysfunction, but she also highlighted the benefits including reduced first and recurrent variceal hemorrhage. 

Rohit Loomba, MD, from the University of California at San Diego addressed fibrosis assessments in fatty liver. In his algorithm, patients with low Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Fibrosis Score or Fibrosis-4 scores would have continued observation, while patients with medium or high scores would undergo transient elastography or magnetic resonance elastography. 

Patrick Northup, MD, from the University of Virginia discussed anticoagulation for portal vein thrombosis. He also discussed consideration of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt if there are high-risk varices. Duration of anticoagulation is controversial, but this strategy may prevent decompensation and affect transplant outcomes. 

Daryl Lau, MD, MSc, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, reviewed the hepatitis B virus therapy controversy for e-antigen–negative patients with prolonged viral suppression. She recommended caution in general and emphasized that stage 3-4 fibrosis patients should not discontinue therapy. 

The final talk was my review of hepatitis C virus treatment. I emphasized that pretreatment fibrosis assessments are critical given continued risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after cure. Challenges include identifying the remaining patients and supporting them through treatment. HCV therapies demonstrate what is possible when breakthroughs are translated to clinical care, and I was honored to participate in this course that highlighted many advances in our field.

Dr. Muir is a professor of medicine, director of gastroenterology & hepatology research at Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chief of the division of gastroenterology in the department of medicine at Duke University, all in Durham, N.C. He has received research grants from and served on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

Citation: Stuart JJ, Tanz LJ, Missmer SA, et al. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and maternal cardiovascular disease risk factor development [published online July 3, 2018]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M17-2740.

Citation: Stuart JJ, Tanz LJ, Missmer SA, et al. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and maternal cardiovascular disease risk factor development [published online July 3, 2018]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M17-2740.

Citation: Stuart JJ, Tanz LJ, Missmer SA, et al. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and maternal cardiovascular disease risk factor development [published online July 3, 2018]. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M17-2740.

Bartholin gland cysts comprise up to 2% of all outpatient gynecology visits each year1 and are a common consult for trainees in obstetrics and gynecology. Although excision of a Bartholin gland cyst is a procedure performed infrequently, knowledge of its anatomy and physiology is important for ObGyn trainees and practicing gynecologists, especially when attempts at conservative management have been exhausted.

Before proceeding with surgical excision, it is important to understand the basics of Bartholin gland anatomy, pathologies, and treatment options. This video demonstrates the excisional technique for a 46-year-old woman with a recurrent, symptomatic Bartholin gland cyst who failed prior conservative management. I hope that you will find this video from my colleagues beneficial to your clinical practice.

Vidyard Video

Bartholin gland cysts comprise up to 2% of all outpatient gynecology visits each year1 and are a common consult for trainees in obstetrics and gynecology. Although excision of a Bartholin gland cyst is a procedure performed infrequently, knowledge of its anatomy and physiology is important for ObGyn trainees and practicing gynecologists, especially when attempts at conservative management have been exhausted.

Before proceeding with surgical excision, it is important to understand the basics of Bartholin gland anatomy, pathologies, and treatment options. This video demonstrates the excisional technique for a 46-year-old woman with a recurrent, symptomatic Bartholin gland cyst who failed prior conservative management. I hope that you will find this video from my colleagues beneficial to your clinical practice.

Vidyard Video

Bartholin gland cysts comprise up to 2% of all outpatient gynecology visits each year1 and are a common consult for trainees in obstetrics and gynecology. Although excision of a Bartholin gland cyst is a procedure performed infrequently, knowledge of its anatomy and physiology is important for ObGyn trainees and practicing gynecologists, especially when attempts at conservative management have been exhausted.

Before proceeding with surgical excision, it is important to understand the basics of Bartholin gland anatomy, pathologies, and treatment options. This video demonstrates the excisional technique for a 46-year-old woman with a recurrent, symptomatic Bartholin gland cyst who failed prior conservative management. I hope that you will find this video from my colleagues beneficial to your clinical practice.

Vidyard Video

MUNICH – In a double blow to the current, widespread routine use of low-dose aspirin and fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes, neither treatment provided any net clinical benefit in the massive, long-term ASCEND study, investigators reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

And, in yet another bitter pill to swallow, low-dose aspirin failed to reduce the incidence of GI cancer or any other type of cancer, compared with placebo in the study. Earlier, nondefinitive meta-analyses of much smaller randomized trials had raised the possibility of a roughly 30% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer in long-time users, said Jane Armitage, MD, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).

“We saw no suggestion of an anticancer effect emerging over time,” Dr. Armitage said. “We did see a significant reduction in the risk of vascular events but also an increase in major bleeding such that the absolute benefits from avoiding a serious vascular event were largely counterbalanced by increased risk of bleeding. And there was no subgroup in which we could clearly define that the benefit outweighs the risk,” she added in a video interview.

ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) was a randomized, blinded trial in which 15,480 U.K. patients with diabetes and no known cardiovascular disease were placed on 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo and 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids in capsule form or placebo in a 2 x 2 factorial design and followed prospectively for a mean of 7.4 years.

The study was undertaken because, even though the value of low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention is supported by strong evidence, the medication’s value for primary prevention in patients with diabetes has long been uncertain. American Diabetes Association guidelines give a Grade C recommendation to consideration of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in patients with diabetes having a 10-year cardiovascular risk estimated at 10% or greater.

The primary efficacy endpoint in ASCEND was the occurrence of a first serious vascular event, defined as MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause other than intracranial hemorrhage. The rate was 8.5% in the aspirin group and 9.6% with placebo, for a statistically significant 12% relative risk reduction. However, the rate of the primary composite safety endpoint, comprising intracranial hemorrhage, GI bleeding, sight-threatening bleeding in the eye, or other bleeding serious enough to entail a trip to the hospital, was 4.1% in the aspirin group and 3.2% with placebo, a 29% increase in risk.

Aspirin reduced the absolute risk of a serious vascular event by 1.1%, compared with placebo, while boosting the risk of major bleeding by an absolute 0.9% – essentially a wash. The number needed to treat to avoid a serious vascular event was 91 patients, with 112 being the number needed to cause a major bleeding event. The risk of major bleeding rose with increasing baseline 5-year vascular event risk.

ASCEND provided no support for a recent report suggesting the benefit of low-dose aspirin for cardioprotection is largely confined to individuals weighing less than 70 kg (Lancet. 2018; 392:387-99); in fact, the opposite appeared to be true, according to Dr. Armitage.

The incidence of cancer of the GI tract was 2.0% in both study arms. The overall cancer rate was 11.6% in the aspirin arm and 11.5% with placebo. Additional follow-up focused on cancer is planned for 5 and 10 years after the end of ASCEND in order to examine the possibility of a delayed anticancer effect, she added.

Dr. Armitage said one reason aspirin may have failed to show a significant net benefit was the high rate of background cardioprotective medication usage, especially statins and antihypertensive drugs.

“I think if your diabetes is well managed and you’ve got your other risk factors under control, you have to consider very carefully whether or not, for you, the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks,” she concluded.

Cardiologists respond

ASCEND’s two designated discussants, both cardiologists, took a more positive view of the results than Dr. Armitage, who isn’t a cardiologist.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Oslo, noted that most ASCEND participants were at relatively low cardiovascular risk, with an event rate of about 1.3% per year. She indicated that she’d like to see more data on higher-risk individuals before excluding any role for aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes.

“Serious vascular events and bleeding are not necessarily equally weighted,” she added. “Most major bleeds in ASCEND were GI bleeds, and these can be largely prevented by PPIs [proton pump inhibitors], in contrast to death and stroke, which are irreversible events.”

“I think this study could be interpreted more favorably,” agreed Christopher P. Cannon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Bleeds are reversible, but MIs and whatnot are not.”

Fish oil flounders in ASCEND

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Louise Bowman, MD, also at the University of Oxford, presented the ASCEND fish oil findings. Over an average of 7.4 years, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation had no effect on the rate of serious vascular events, no effect on cancer, no impact on all-cause or cause-specific mortality, and raised no safety issues in patients with diabetes. She argued that current guidelines recommending fish oil supplements for cardiovascular prevention should be reconsidered.

“Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any justification for the use of this dose of omega-3 fatty acids – 1 g/day – for the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Bowman said.

However, Dr. Cannon saw a sliver of hope within the ASCEND findings. One component of the serious vascular event composite endpoint – vascular death – occurred in 2.4% of the fish oil group and 2.9% of placebo-treated controls, for a statistically significant 19% relative risk reduction. It could be a fluke, given that none of the other vascular endpoints followed suit. But physicians and patients won’t have to wait long to find out. Another randomized trial of low-dose fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention – the nearly 26,000-patient VITAL trial – is due to report later in 2018.

In addition, two major, randomized trials of higher-dose fish oil supplementation for secondary prevention are ongoing. The roughly 8,000-patient REDUCE-IT trial is expected to report results later this year, and the STRENGTH trial, featuring more than 13,000 patients, should be completed in 2020. Both studies are heavily loaded with diabetes patients, Dr. Cannon noted.

Simultaneous with presentation of the ASCEND results at the ESC congress, the study was published online at the New England Journal of Medicine website (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804988 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989).

The ASCEND study was funded by the British Heart Foundation and the U.K. Medical Research Council with support provided by Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage and Dr. Bowman reported receiving research grants from the Medicines Company, Bayer, and Mylan. Dr. Halvorsen reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Cannon reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including the Amarin Corporation, which markets a fish oil supplement and sponsored the REDUCE-IT trial.

[email protected]

MUNICH – In a double blow to the current, widespread routine use of low-dose aspirin and fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes, neither treatment provided any net clinical benefit in the massive, long-term ASCEND study, investigators reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

And, in yet another bitter pill to swallow, low-dose aspirin failed to reduce the incidence of GI cancer or any other type of cancer, compared with placebo in the study. Earlier, nondefinitive meta-analyses of much smaller randomized trials had raised the possibility of a roughly 30% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer in long-time users, said Jane Armitage, MD, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).

“We saw no suggestion of an anticancer effect emerging over time,” Dr. Armitage said. “We did see a significant reduction in the risk of vascular events but also an increase in major bleeding such that the absolute benefits from avoiding a serious vascular event were largely counterbalanced by increased risk of bleeding. And there was no subgroup in which we could clearly define that the benefit outweighs the risk,” she added in a video interview.

ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) was a randomized, blinded trial in which 15,480 U.K. patients with diabetes and no known cardiovascular disease were placed on 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo and 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids in capsule form or placebo in a 2 x 2 factorial design and followed prospectively for a mean of 7.4 years.

The study was undertaken because, even though the value of low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention is supported by strong evidence, the medication’s value for primary prevention in patients with diabetes has long been uncertain. American Diabetes Association guidelines give a Grade C recommendation to consideration of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in patients with diabetes having a 10-year cardiovascular risk estimated at 10% or greater.

The primary efficacy endpoint in ASCEND was the occurrence of a first serious vascular event, defined as MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause other than intracranial hemorrhage. The rate was 8.5% in the aspirin group and 9.6% with placebo, for a statistically significant 12% relative risk reduction. However, the rate of the primary composite safety endpoint, comprising intracranial hemorrhage, GI bleeding, sight-threatening bleeding in the eye, or other bleeding serious enough to entail a trip to the hospital, was 4.1% in the aspirin group and 3.2% with placebo, a 29% increase in risk.

Aspirin reduced the absolute risk of a serious vascular event by 1.1%, compared with placebo, while boosting the risk of major bleeding by an absolute 0.9% – essentially a wash. The number needed to treat to avoid a serious vascular event was 91 patients, with 112 being the number needed to cause a major bleeding event. The risk of major bleeding rose with increasing baseline 5-year vascular event risk.

ASCEND provided no support for a recent report suggesting the benefit of low-dose aspirin for cardioprotection is largely confined to individuals weighing less than 70 kg (Lancet. 2018; 392:387-99); in fact, the opposite appeared to be true, according to Dr. Armitage.

The incidence of cancer of the GI tract was 2.0% in both study arms. The overall cancer rate was 11.6% in the aspirin arm and 11.5% with placebo. Additional follow-up focused on cancer is planned for 5 and 10 years after the end of ASCEND in order to examine the possibility of a delayed anticancer effect, she added.

Dr. Armitage said one reason aspirin may have failed to show a significant net benefit was the high rate of background cardioprotective medication usage, especially statins and antihypertensive drugs.

“I think if your diabetes is well managed and you’ve got your other risk factors under control, you have to consider very carefully whether or not, for you, the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks,” she concluded.

Cardiologists respond

ASCEND’s two designated discussants, both cardiologists, took a more positive view of the results than Dr. Armitage, who isn’t a cardiologist.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Oslo, noted that most ASCEND participants were at relatively low cardiovascular risk, with an event rate of about 1.3% per year. She indicated that she’d like to see more data on higher-risk individuals before excluding any role for aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes.

“Serious vascular events and bleeding are not necessarily equally weighted,” she added. “Most major bleeds in ASCEND were GI bleeds, and these can be largely prevented by PPIs [proton pump inhibitors], in contrast to death and stroke, which are irreversible events.”

“I think this study could be interpreted more favorably,” agreed Christopher P. Cannon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Bleeds are reversible, but MIs and whatnot are not.”

Fish oil flounders in ASCEND

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Louise Bowman, MD, also at the University of Oxford, presented the ASCEND fish oil findings. Over an average of 7.4 years, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation had no effect on the rate of serious vascular events, no effect on cancer, no impact on all-cause or cause-specific mortality, and raised no safety issues in patients with diabetes. She argued that current guidelines recommending fish oil supplements for cardiovascular prevention should be reconsidered.

“Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any justification for the use of this dose of omega-3 fatty acids – 1 g/day – for the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Bowman said.

However, Dr. Cannon saw a sliver of hope within the ASCEND findings. One component of the serious vascular event composite endpoint – vascular death – occurred in 2.4% of the fish oil group and 2.9% of placebo-treated controls, for a statistically significant 19% relative risk reduction. It could be a fluke, given that none of the other vascular endpoints followed suit. But physicians and patients won’t have to wait long to find out. Another randomized trial of low-dose fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention – the nearly 26,000-patient VITAL trial – is due to report later in 2018.

In addition, two major, randomized trials of higher-dose fish oil supplementation for secondary prevention are ongoing. The roughly 8,000-patient REDUCE-IT trial is expected to report results later this year, and the STRENGTH trial, featuring more than 13,000 patients, should be completed in 2020. Both studies are heavily loaded with diabetes patients, Dr. Cannon noted.

Simultaneous with presentation of the ASCEND results at the ESC congress, the study was published online at the New England Journal of Medicine website (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804988 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989).

The ASCEND study was funded by the British Heart Foundation and the U.K. Medical Research Council with support provided by Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage and Dr. Bowman reported receiving research grants from the Medicines Company, Bayer, and Mylan. Dr. Halvorsen reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Cannon reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including the Amarin Corporation, which markets a fish oil supplement and sponsored the REDUCE-IT trial.

[email protected]

MUNICH – In a double blow to the current, widespread routine use of low-dose aspirin and fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes, neither treatment provided any net clinical benefit in the massive, long-term ASCEND study, investigators reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

And, in yet another bitter pill to swallow, low-dose aspirin failed to reduce the incidence of GI cancer or any other type of cancer, compared with placebo in the study. Earlier, nondefinitive meta-analyses of much smaller randomized trials had raised the possibility of a roughly 30% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer in long-time users, said Jane Armitage, MD, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).

“We saw no suggestion of an anticancer effect emerging over time,” Dr. Armitage said. “We did see a significant reduction in the risk of vascular events but also an increase in major bleeding such that the absolute benefits from avoiding a serious vascular event were largely counterbalanced by increased risk of bleeding. And there was no subgroup in which we could clearly define that the benefit outweighs the risk,” she added in a video interview.

ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) was a randomized, blinded trial in which 15,480 U.K. patients with diabetes and no known cardiovascular disease were placed on 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo and 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids in capsule form or placebo in a 2 x 2 factorial design and followed prospectively for a mean of 7.4 years.

The study was undertaken because, even though the value of low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention is supported by strong evidence, the medication’s value for primary prevention in patients with diabetes has long been uncertain. American Diabetes Association guidelines give a Grade C recommendation to consideration of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in patients with diabetes having a 10-year cardiovascular risk estimated at 10% or greater.

The primary efficacy endpoint in ASCEND was the occurrence of a first serious vascular event, defined as MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause other than intracranial hemorrhage. The rate was 8.5% in the aspirin group and 9.6% with placebo, for a statistically significant 12% relative risk reduction. However, the rate of the primary composite safety endpoint, comprising intracranial hemorrhage, GI bleeding, sight-threatening bleeding in the eye, or other bleeding serious enough to entail a trip to the hospital, was 4.1% in the aspirin group and 3.2% with placebo, a 29% increase in risk.

Aspirin reduced the absolute risk of a serious vascular event by 1.1%, compared with placebo, while boosting the risk of major bleeding by an absolute 0.9% – essentially a wash. The number needed to treat to avoid a serious vascular event was 91 patients, with 112 being the number needed to cause a major bleeding event. The risk of major bleeding rose with increasing baseline 5-year vascular event risk.

ASCEND provided no support for a recent report suggesting the benefit of low-dose aspirin for cardioprotection is largely confined to individuals weighing less than 70 kg (Lancet. 2018; 392:387-99); in fact, the opposite appeared to be true, according to Dr. Armitage.

The incidence of cancer of the GI tract was 2.0% in both study arms. The overall cancer rate was 11.6% in the aspirin arm and 11.5% with placebo. Additional follow-up focused on cancer is planned for 5 and 10 years after the end of ASCEND in order to examine the possibility of a delayed anticancer effect, she added.

Dr. Armitage said one reason aspirin may have failed to show a significant net benefit was the high rate of background cardioprotective medication usage, especially statins and antihypertensive drugs.

“I think if your diabetes is well managed and you’ve got your other risk factors under control, you have to consider very carefully whether or not, for you, the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks,” she concluded.

Cardiologists respond

ASCEND’s two designated discussants, both cardiologists, took a more positive view of the results than Dr. Armitage, who isn’t a cardiologist.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Oslo, noted that most ASCEND participants were at relatively low cardiovascular risk, with an event rate of about 1.3% per year. She indicated that she’d like to see more data on higher-risk individuals before excluding any role for aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes.

“Serious vascular events and bleeding are not necessarily equally weighted,” she added. “Most major bleeds in ASCEND were GI bleeds, and these can be largely prevented by PPIs [proton pump inhibitors], in contrast to death and stroke, which are irreversible events.”

“I think this study could be interpreted more favorably,” agreed Christopher P. Cannon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Bleeds are reversible, but MIs and whatnot are not.”

Fish oil flounders in ASCEND

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Louise Bowman, MD, also at the University of Oxford, presented the ASCEND fish oil findings. Over an average of 7.4 years, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation had no effect on the rate of serious vascular events, no effect on cancer, no impact on all-cause or cause-specific mortality, and raised no safety issues in patients with diabetes. She argued that current guidelines recommending fish oil supplements for cardiovascular prevention should be reconsidered.

“Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any justification for the use of this dose of omega-3 fatty acids – 1 g/day – for the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Bowman said.

However, Dr. Cannon saw a sliver of hope within the ASCEND findings. One component of the serious vascular event composite endpoint – vascular death – occurred in 2.4% of the fish oil group and 2.9% of placebo-treated controls, for a statistically significant 19% relative risk reduction. It could be a fluke, given that none of the other vascular endpoints followed suit. But physicians and patients won’t have to wait long to find out. Another randomized trial of low-dose fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention – the nearly 26,000-patient VITAL trial – is due to report later in 2018.

In addition, two major, randomized trials of higher-dose fish oil supplementation for secondary prevention are ongoing. The roughly 8,000-patient REDUCE-IT trial is expected to report results later this year, and the STRENGTH trial, featuring more than 13,000 patients, should be completed in 2020. Both studies are heavily loaded with diabetes patients, Dr. Cannon noted.

Simultaneous with presentation of the ASCEND results at the ESC congress, the study was published online at the New England Journal of Medicine website (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804988 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989).

The ASCEND study was funded by the British Heart Foundation and the U.K. Medical Research Council with support provided by Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage and Dr. Bowman reported receiving research grants from the Medicines Company, Bayer, and Mylan. Dr. Halvorsen reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Cannon reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including the Amarin Corporation, which markets a fish oil supplement and sponsored the REDUCE-IT trial.

[email protected]

MUNICH – Lorcaserin is the first weight-loss drug proven to have cardiovascular safety, Erin A. Bohula, MD, DPhil, told Mitchel L. Zoler in an interview.

Dr. Bohula reported on the results of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial, which was designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of the weight-loss drug lorcaserin in more than 10,000 patients. She presented the data at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In CAMELLIA-TIMI 61, the primary safety endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke, was nearly identical between patients on lorcaserin and those given placebo, 2% and 2.1% per year, at P less than .001 for noninferiority. Similarly, the primary efficacy outcome comprising heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, was very close between the treated and placebo patients, occurring in 4.1% and 4.2% per year, respectively.

In addition, “there was a sustained weight loss, more than with lifestyle alone or lifestyle plus placebo, which at its peak was about 3 kg. With that there were small, but significant, reductions in heart rate, blood pressure, triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c, and there was a significant reduction in new-onset diabetes.”   

“Overall, there’s not a lot of use of pharmacologic agents for weight loss in the United States, and a lot of that is based on fear of the historical experience, which is that they were not safe. I suspect that having a drug that is proven safe will now lead people to reach for a pharmacologic agent like lorcaserin,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist at of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an investigator at the TIMI study group.

[email protected]

MUNICH – Lorcaserin is the first weight-loss drug proven to have cardiovascular safety, Erin A. Bohula, MD, DPhil, told Mitchel L. Zoler in an interview.

Dr. Bohula reported on the results of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial, which was designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of the weight-loss drug lorcaserin in more than 10,000 patients. She presented the data at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In CAMELLIA-TIMI 61, the primary safety endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke, was nearly identical between patients on lorcaserin and those given placebo, 2% and 2.1% per year, at P less than .001 for noninferiority. Similarly, the primary efficacy outcome comprising heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, was very close between the treated and placebo patients, occurring in 4.1% and 4.2% per year, respectively.

In addition, “there was a sustained weight loss, more than with lifestyle alone or lifestyle plus placebo, which at its peak was about 3 kg. With that there were small, but significant, reductions in heart rate, blood pressure, triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c, and there was a significant reduction in new-onset diabetes.”   

“Overall, there’s not a lot of use of pharmacologic agents for weight loss in the United States, and a lot of that is based on fear of the historical experience, which is that they were not safe. I suspect that having a drug that is proven safe will now lead people to reach for a pharmacologic agent like lorcaserin,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist at of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an investigator at the TIMI study group.

[email protected]

MUNICH – Lorcaserin is the first weight-loss drug proven to have cardiovascular safety, Erin A. Bohula, MD, DPhil, told Mitchel L. Zoler in an interview.

Dr. Bohula reported on the results of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial, which was designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of the weight-loss drug lorcaserin in more than 10,000 patients. She presented the data at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In CAMELLIA-TIMI 61, the primary safety endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke, was nearly identical between patients on lorcaserin and those given placebo, 2% and 2.1% per year, at P less than .001 for noninferiority. Similarly, the primary efficacy outcome comprising heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, was very close between the treated and placebo patients, occurring in 4.1% and 4.2% per year, respectively.

In addition, “there was a sustained weight loss, more than with lifestyle alone or lifestyle plus placebo, which at its peak was about 3 kg. With that there were small, but significant, reductions in heart rate, blood pressure, triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c, and there was a significant reduction in new-onset diabetes.”   

“Overall, there’s not a lot of use of pharmacologic agents for weight loss in the United States, and a lot of that is based on fear of the historical experience, which is that they were not safe. I suspect that having a drug that is proven safe will now lead people to reach for a pharmacologic agent like lorcaserin,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist at of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an investigator at the TIMI study group.

[email protected]