Patrice Wendling

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

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

 Further support for the benefits of regular exercise in reducing severe COVID-19 outcomes has come from a large study, the first to directly measure physical activity in its participants.

Researchers identified 65,361 members of a South African private health plan who had a COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to June 2021 and matched them with physical activity data during the 2 years prior to the country’s March 2020 lockdown captured by smart devices, and clocked gym attendance and mass event participation in a voluntary healthy lifestyle behavior program linked to the insurer.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

In all, 20.4% of participants had engaged in low levels of at least moderate-intensity physical activity per week (0-59 minutes), 34.5% in moderate levels (60-149 minutes), and 45.1% in high levels (150 minutes or more).

Overall, 11.1% were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, 2.4% were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% required a ventilator, and 1.6% died.

As reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, analyses adjusted for demographic and other risk factors showed that, with COVID-19 infection, people with high versus low physical activity had a 34% lower risk for hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70), a 41% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66), a 45% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64), and a 42% lower risk for death (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68).

Even moderate physical exercise, below the recommended guidelines of at least 150 minutes per week, was associated with several benefits, such as a 13% lower risk for hospitalization (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91), a 20% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), a 27% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84), and a21% lower risk for death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91).

“Should we come across further waves of this pandemic, our advice from a medical point of view should be to promote and facilitate exercise,” senior author Jon Patricios, MD, Wits Sport and Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview. “The likelihood is that exercise and vaccination are going to be the two most significant interventions in terms of helping to offload the health care system rather than face the catastrophic events endured a year or so ago.”

The study showed that males are at greater risk than females for severe COVID-19 outcomes, as were patients with essential hypertension, diabetes, and chronic renal disease.

It also suggests that the protective benefit of exercise extends to HIV-positive patients and those with rheumatoid arthritis, two groups previously not evaluated, the authors noted.

The results are comparable with previous reports of self-reported exercise and COVID-19 from the United States and South Korea, although the effect of even moderate exercise was more significant, possibly due to the use of direct measures of exercise rather than self-report, Dr. Patricios suggested.

Previous data suggest that regular physical activity may protect against many viral infections including influenza, rhinovirus, and the reactivation of latent herpes viruses, he noted. However, emerging evidence also points to significant decreases in physical activity during the pandemic.

“Regular physical activity should be a message that is strongly, strongly advocated for, particularly in less well-developed countries where we don’t have access or the resources to afford pharmacological interventions in many of these scenarios,” Dr. Patricios said. “It’s frustrating that the message is not driven strongly enough. It should be part of every government’s agenda.”

The cohort all being members of a medical insurance plan could imply some selection bias based on affordability and limit generalizability of the results, the authors noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on sociodemographic criteria such as education, income, and race, as well as behavioral risk factors such as smoking and diet.

Dr. Patricios and one coauthor are editors of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Several coauthors are employees of Discovery Health, Johannesburg.

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

 Further support for the benefits of regular exercise in reducing severe COVID-19 outcomes has come from a large study, the first to directly measure physical activity in its participants.

Researchers identified 65,361 members of a South African private health plan who had a COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to June 2021 and matched them with physical activity data during the 2 years prior to the country’s March 2020 lockdown captured by smart devices, and clocked gym attendance and mass event participation in a voluntary healthy lifestyle behavior program linked to the insurer.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

In all, 20.4% of participants had engaged in low levels of at least moderate-intensity physical activity per week (0-59 minutes), 34.5% in moderate levels (60-149 minutes), and 45.1% in high levels (150 minutes or more).

Overall, 11.1% were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, 2.4% were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% required a ventilator, and 1.6% died.

As reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, analyses adjusted for demographic and other risk factors showed that, with COVID-19 infection, people with high versus low physical activity had a 34% lower risk for hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70), a 41% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66), a 45% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64), and a 42% lower risk for death (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68).

Even moderate physical exercise, below the recommended guidelines of at least 150 minutes per week, was associated with several benefits, such as a 13% lower risk for hospitalization (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91), a 20% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), a 27% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84), and a21% lower risk for death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91).

“Should we come across further waves of this pandemic, our advice from a medical point of view should be to promote and facilitate exercise,” senior author Jon Patricios, MD, Wits Sport and Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview. “The likelihood is that exercise and vaccination are going to be the two most significant interventions in terms of helping to offload the health care system rather than face the catastrophic events endured a year or so ago.”

The study showed that males are at greater risk than females for severe COVID-19 outcomes, as were patients with essential hypertension, diabetes, and chronic renal disease.

It also suggests that the protective benefit of exercise extends to HIV-positive patients and those with rheumatoid arthritis, two groups previously not evaluated, the authors noted.

The results are comparable with previous reports of self-reported exercise and COVID-19 from the United States and South Korea, although the effect of even moderate exercise was more significant, possibly due to the use of direct measures of exercise rather than self-report, Dr. Patricios suggested.

Previous data suggest that regular physical activity may protect against many viral infections including influenza, rhinovirus, and the reactivation of latent herpes viruses, he noted. However, emerging evidence also points to significant decreases in physical activity during the pandemic.

“Regular physical activity should be a message that is strongly, strongly advocated for, particularly in less well-developed countries where we don’t have access or the resources to afford pharmacological interventions in many of these scenarios,” Dr. Patricios said. “It’s frustrating that the message is not driven strongly enough. It should be part of every government’s agenda.”

The cohort all being members of a medical insurance plan could imply some selection bias based on affordability and limit generalizability of the results, the authors noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on sociodemographic criteria such as education, income, and race, as well as behavioral risk factors such as smoking and diet.

Dr. Patricios and one coauthor are editors of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Several coauthors are employees of Discovery Health, Johannesburg.

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

 Further support for the benefits of regular exercise in reducing severe COVID-19 outcomes has come from a large study, the first to directly measure physical activity in its participants.

Researchers identified 65,361 members of a South African private health plan who had a COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to June 2021 and matched them with physical activity data during the 2 years prior to the country’s March 2020 lockdown captured by smart devices, and clocked gym attendance and mass event participation in a voluntary healthy lifestyle behavior program linked to the insurer.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

In all, 20.4% of participants had engaged in low levels of at least moderate-intensity physical activity per week (0-59 minutes), 34.5% in moderate levels (60-149 minutes), and 45.1% in high levels (150 minutes or more).

Overall, 11.1% were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, 2.4% were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% required a ventilator, and 1.6% died.

As reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, analyses adjusted for demographic and other risk factors showed that, with COVID-19 infection, people with high versus low physical activity had a 34% lower risk for hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70), a 41% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66), a 45% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64), and a 42% lower risk for death (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68).

Even moderate physical exercise, below the recommended guidelines of at least 150 minutes per week, was associated with several benefits, such as a 13% lower risk for hospitalization (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91), a 20% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), a 27% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84), and a21% lower risk for death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91).

“Should we come across further waves of this pandemic, our advice from a medical point of view should be to promote and facilitate exercise,” senior author Jon Patricios, MD, Wits Sport and Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview. “The likelihood is that exercise and vaccination are going to be the two most significant interventions in terms of helping to offload the health care system rather than face the catastrophic events endured a year or so ago.”

The study showed that males are at greater risk than females for severe COVID-19 outcomes, as were patients with essential hypertension, diabetes, and chronic renal disease.

It also suggests that the protective benefit of exercise extends to HIV-positive patients and those with rheumatoid arthritis, two groups previously not evaluated, the authors noted.

The results are comparable with previous reports of self-reported exercise and COVID-19 from the United States and South Korea, although the effect of even moderate exercise was more significant, possibly due to the use of direct measures of exercise rather than self-report, Dr. Patricios suggested.

Previous data suggest that regular physical activity may protect against many viral infections including influenza, rhinovirus, and the reactivation of latent herpes viruses, he noted. However, emerging evidence also points to significant decreases in physical activity during the pandemic.

“Regular physical activity should be a message that is strongly, strongly advocated for, particularly in less well-developed countries where we don’t have access or the resources to afford pharmacological interventions in many of these scenarios,” Dr. Patricios said. “It’s frustrating that the message is not driven strongly enough. It should be part of every government’s agenda.”

The cohort all being members of a medical insurance plan could imply some selection bias based on affordability and limit generalizability of the results, the authors noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on sociodemographic criteria such as education, income, and race, as well as behavioral risk factors such as smoking and diet.

Dr. Patricios and one coauthor are editors of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Several coauthors are employees of Discovery Health, Johannesburg.

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

Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.

The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.

The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.

It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.

“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”

The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.

Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”

He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.

“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”

Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis

The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.

They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.

“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”

Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”

The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.

“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
 

MIs, bleeding, and LBBB

The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.

“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.

The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.

With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.

The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.

Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.

Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”

Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.

Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.

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

Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.

The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.

The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.

It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.

“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”

The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.

Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”

He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.

“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”

Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis

The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.

They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.

“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”

Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”

The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.

“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
 

MIs, bleeding, and LBBB

The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.

“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.

The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.

With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.

The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.

Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.

Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”

Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.

Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.

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

Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.

The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.

The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.

It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.

“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”

The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.

Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”

He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.

“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”

Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis

The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.

They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.

“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”

Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”

The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.

“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
 

MIs, bleeding, and LBBB

The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.

“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.

The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.

With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.

The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.

Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.

Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”

Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.

Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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