MDedge Cardiology

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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