Video

SAN DIEGO – Unless the cause of syncope has been identified after a thorough workup in the emergency department, there is no advantage to admitting patients aged 60 years and older who complain of syncope, an ED-based study has found.

Almost 2,500 patients aged 60 or older with unexplained syncope after a thorough workup had similar 30-day outcomes whether they were admitted to the hospital or sent home from the ED, based on the results of a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Dr. Marc A. Probst of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who presented the data, reported that many centers admit older patients with syncope, although the benefit of this practice has not been well established.

In a video interview, Dr. Probst points out how the findings may be useful in guiding clinical decisions or counseling patients when admission is being considered.

SAN DIEGO – Unless the cause of syncope has been identified after a thorough workup in the emergency department, there is no advantage to admitting patients aged 60 years and older who complain of syncope, an ED-based study has found.

Almost 2,500 patients aged 60 or older with unexplained syncope after a thorough workup had similar 30-day outcomes whether they were admitted to the hospital or sent home from the ED, based on the results of a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Dr. Marc A. Probst of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who presented the data, reported that many centers admit older patients with syncope, although the benefit of this practice has not been well established.

In a video interview, Dr. Probst points out how the findings may be useful in guiding clinical decisions or counseling patients when admission is being considered.

SAN DIEGO – Unless the cause of syncope has been identified after a thorough workup in the emergency department, there is no advantage to admitting patients aged 60 years and older who complain of syncope, an ED-based study has found.

Almost 2,500 patients aged 60 or older with unexplained syncope after a thorough workup had similar 30-day outcomes whether they were admitted to the hospital or sent home from the ED, based on the results of a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Dr. Marc A. Probst of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who presented the data, reported that many centers admit older patients with syncope, although the benefit of this practice has not been well established.

In a video interview, Dr. Probst points out how the findings may be useful in guiding clinical decisions or counseling patients when admission is being considered.

SAN DIEGO – The rule-in cutoff level for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin measures in the diagnosis of acute MI have been established by the European Society of Cardiology, but the value might not be applicable to a U.S. population.

In a video interview at the annual scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Richard M. Nowak, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, explains why the rule-in cutoff is not likely to apply to American patients and may be associated with a higher risk of false positives.

Since high-sensitivity troponin measures will soon be coming to every ED, each institution may have to arrive at their own rule-in cutoff value in order to diagnose acute MI with an acceptable number of false positives, he said. Dr. Nowak explains how to begin addressing that process.

SAN DIEGO – The rule-in cutoff level for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin measures in the diagnosis of acute MI have been established by the European Society of Cardiology, but the value might not be applicable to a U.S. population.

In a video interview at the annual scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Richard M. Nowak, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, explains why the rule-in cutoff is not likely to apply to American patients and may be associated with a higher risk of false positives.

Since high-sensitivity troponin measures will soon be coming to every ED, each institution may have to arrive at their own rule-in cutoff value in order to diagnose acute MI with an acceptable number of false positives, he said. Dr. Nowak explains how to begin addressing that process.

SAN DIEGO – The rule-in cutoff level for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin measures in the diagnosis of acute MI have been established by the European Society of Cardiology, but the value might not be applicable to a U.S. population.

In a video interview at the annual scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Richard M. Nowak, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, explains why the rule-in cutoff is not likely to apply to American patients and may be associated with a higher risk of false positives.

Since high-sensitivity troponin measures will soon be coming to every ED, each institution may have to arrive at their own rule-in cutoff value in order to diagnose acute MI with an acceptable number of false positives, he said. Dr. Nowak explains how to begin addressing that process.

SAN DIEGO – Acute promyelocytic leukemia is one of five “can’t miss” oncologic emergencies, Megan Boysen Osborn, MD, MHPE, told a standing-room-only crowd at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

In our exclusive video interview, Dr. Osborn, vice chair of education and the residency program director in the department of emergency medicine at the University of California, Irvine, offered tips on how to recognize acute promyelocytic leukemia, leukostasis, neutropenic fever, tumor lysis syndrome, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

“All patients with suspected leukemias should be admitted,” she said. “Time is of the essence.”

Dr. Osborn reported having no financial disclosures related to her presentation.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Acute promyelocytic leukemia is one of five “can’t miss” oncologic emergencies, Megan Boysen Osborn, MD, MHPE, told a standing-room-only crowd at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

In our exclusive video interview, Dr. Osborn, vice chair of education and the residency program director in the department of emergency medicine at the University of California, Irvine, offered tips on how to recognize acute promyelocytic leukemia, leukostasis, neutropenic fever, tumor lysis syndrome, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

“All patients with suspected leukemias should be admitted,” she said. “Time is of the essence.”

Dr. Osborn reported having no financial disclosures related to her presentation.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Acute promyelocytic leukemia is one of five “can’t miss” oncologic emergencies, Megan Boysen Osborn, MD, MHPE, told a standing-room-only crowd at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

In our exclusive video interview, Dr. Osborn, vice chair of education and the residency program director in the department of emergency medicine at the University of California, Irvine, offered tips on how to recognize acute promyelocytic leukemia, leukostasis, neutropenic fever, tumor lysis syndrome, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

“All patients with suspected leukemias should be admitted,” she said. “Time is of the essence.”

Dr. Osborn reported having no financial disclosures related to her presentation.

[email protected]

MUNICH – When treating de novo coronary stenoses in arteries thinner than 3 mm, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) performed virtually identically to conventional drug-eluting stents (DESs) for preventing the clinical consequences of restenosis during 12 months following coronary intervention, according to results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.

Drug-coated balloons are already used to treat in-stent coronary restenosis. The findings of the current study establish the tested DCB as noninferior to a DES for treating coronary stenoses in narrow arteries less than 3 mm in diameter, Raban V. Jeger, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The DCB approach avoids placing a metal stent in a narrow coronary and thus has no long-term risk for in-stent thrombosis, said Dr. Jeger, a professor of cardiology at Basel (Switzerland) University Hospital. Dr. Jeger acknowledged that the tested DCB is more expensive than the second-generation DES used as the comparator in most of the control patients, “but I think the benefit to patients is worth” the added cost, he said when discussing his report.

The BASKET-SMALL 2 (NCT01574534) study enrolled 758 patients at 14 centers in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. The trial limited enrollment to patients who were scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for stenosis in a coronary artery that was at least 2.0 mm and less than 3.0 mm in diameter and had first undergone successful predilatation without any flow-limiting dissections or residual stenosis, a step in the DCB procedure that adds to the procedure’s cost.

The study randomized patients to treatment with either a balloon coated with paclitaxel/iopromide (SeQuent Please) or a DES. The first quarter of patients randomized into the DES arm received a first-generation, paclitaxel-eluting DES (Taxus Element); the remaining patients in the comparator arm received a second-generation everolimus-eluting DES (Xience). The DCB tested is not approved for U.S. marketing.

The primary endpoint was the combined rate of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or target vessel revascularization during 12 months of follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analysis, this occurred in 7.33% of the DCB patients and in 7.45% of the DES patients, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority of the DCB. Concurrently with Dr. Jeger’s report at the congress, the results also appeared in an article published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2018 Sep 8;392[10190]:849-56).



One limitation of the study was that the first 25% of patients enrolled into the DES arm received a first-generation DES, while the remaining 75% received a second-generation device. Analysis of the primary endpoint by DES type showed that events occurred more than twice as often in the patients who received a first-generation DES, and their inclusion may have affected the comparator group’s results.

Coronary arteries that need percutaneous intervention and are less than 3 mm in diameter constitute about a third of all target vessels, and they are especially common among women and in patients with diabetes, Dr. Jeger said. Despite this, women made up about a quarter of the study enrollment, and about a third had diabetes. He also noted that a key aspect of adopting the DCB approach into routine practice is that operators would need to have the “courage” to accept some amount of recoil and “minor” dissections after DCB treatment and not feel compelled to correct these with a stent.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other features of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial also have raised concerns about the immediate clinical implications of the results, said Roxana Mehran, MD, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and the congress’s designated discussant for the report.

The study began in 2012, which means it took more than 5 years to enroll and suggests that the study may have a selection bias. Dr. Mehran also questioned whether it was really a small vessel study, with an enrollment criterion of less than 3 mm in diameter. A future study should be done in “truly” small vessels, those thinner than 2.5 mm, she said.

Dr. Mehran agreed it’s attractive to speculate that, by using a DCB and avoiding stent placement, fewer patients will eventually have very-late adverse events, but this must be proven with longer follow-up and in larger numbers of patients, she said.

[email protected]

MUNICH – When treating de novo coronary stenoses in arteries thinner than 3 mm, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) performed virtually identically to conventional drug-eluting stents (DESs) for preventing the clinical consequences of restenosis during 12 months following coronary intervention, according to results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.

Drug-coated balloons are already used to treat in-stent coronary restenosis. The findings of the current study establish the tested DCB as noninferior to a DES for treating coronary stenoses in narrow arteries less than 3 mm in diameter, Raban V. Jeger, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The DCB approach avoids placing a metal stent in a narrow coronary and thus has no long-term risk for in-stent thrombosis, said Dr. Jeger, a professor of cardiology at Basel (Switzerland) University Hospital. Dr. Jeger acknowledged that the tested DCB is more expensive than the second-generation DES used as the comparator in most of the control patients, “but I think the benefit to patients is worth” the added cost, he said when discussing his report.

The BASKET-SMALL 2 (NCT01574534) study enrolled 758 patients at 14 centers in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. The trial limited enrollment to patients who were scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for stenosis in a coronary artery that was at least 2.0 mm and less than 3.0 mm in diameter and had first undergone successful predilatation without any flow-limiting dissections or residual stenosis, a step in the DCB procedure that adds to the procedure’s cost.

The study randomized patients to treatment with either a balloon coated with paclitaxel/iopromide (SeQuent Please) or a DES. The first quarter of patients randomized into the DES arm received a first-generation, paclitaxel-eluting DES (Taxus Element); the remaining patients in the comparator arm received a second-generation everolimus-eluting DES (Xience). The DCB tested is not approved for U.S. marketing.

The primary endpoint was the combined rate of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or target vessel revascularization during 12 months of follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analysis, this occurred in 7.33% of the DCB patients and in 7.45% of the DES patients, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority of the DCB. Concurrently with Dr. Jeger’s report at the congress, the results also appeared in an article published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2018 Sep 8;392[10190]:849-56).



One limitation of the study was that the first 25% of patients enrolled into the DES arm received a first-generation DES, while the remaining 75% received a second-generation device. Analysis of the primary endpoint by DES type showed that events occurred more than twice as often in the patients who received a first-generation DES, and their inclusion may have affected the comparator group’s results.

Coronary arteries that need percutaneous intervention and are less than 3 mm in diameter constitute about a third of all target vessels, and they are especially common among women and in patients with diabetes, Dr. Jeger said. Despite this, women made up about a quarter of the study enrollment, and about a third had diabetes. He also noted that a key aspect of adopting the DCB approach into routine practice is that operators would need to have the “courage” to accept some amount of recoil and “minor” dissections after DCB treatment and not feel compelled to correct these with a stent.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other features of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial also have raised concerns about the immediate clinical implications of the results, said Roxana Mehran, MD, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and the congress’s designated discussant for the report.

The study began in 2012, which means it took more than 5 years to enroll and suggests that the study may have a selection bias. Dr. Mehran also questioned whether it was really a small vessel study, with an enrollment criterion of less than 3 mm in diameter. A future study should be done in “truly” small vessels, those thinner than 2.5 mm, she said.

Dr. Mehran agreed it’s attractive to speculate that, by using a DCB and avoiding stent placement, fewer patients will eventually have very-late adverse events, but this must be proven with longer follow-up and in larger numbers of patients, she said.

[email protected]

MUNICH – When treating de novo coronary stenoses in arteries thinner than 3 mm, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) performed virtually identically to conventional drug-eluting stents (DESs) for preventing the clinical consequences of restenosis during 12 months following coronary intervention, according to results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.

Drug-coated balloons are already used to treat in-stent coronary restenosis. The findings of the current study establish the tested DCB as noninferior to a DES for treating coronary stenoses in narrow arteries less than 3 mm in diameter, Raban V. Jeger, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The DCB approach avoids placing a metal stent in a narrow coronary and thus has no long-term risk for in-stent thrombosis, said Dr. Jeger, a professor of cardiology at Basel (Switzerland) University Hospital. Dr. Jeger acknowledged that the tested DCB is more expensive than the second-generation DES used as the comparator in most of the control patients, “but I think the benefit to patients is worth” the added cost, he said when discussing his report.

The BASKET-SMALL 2 (NCT01574534) study enrolled 758 patients at 14 centers in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. The trial limited enrollment to patients who were scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for stenosis in a coronary artery that was at least 2.0 mm and less than 3.0 mm in diameter and had first undergone successful predilatation without any flow-limiting dissections or residual stenosis, a step in the DCB procedure that adds to the procedure’s cost.

The study randomized patients to treatment with either a balloon coated with paclitaxel/iopromide (SeQuent Please) or a DES. The first quarter of patients randomized into the DES arm received a first-generation, paclitaxel-eluting DES (Taxus Element); the remaining patients in the comparator arm received a second-generation everolimus-eluting DES (Xience). The DCB tested is not approved for U.S. marketing.

The primary endpoint was the combined rate of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or target vessel revascularization during 12 months of follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analysis, this occurred in 7.33% of the DCB patients and in 7.45% of the DES patients, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority of the DCB. Concurrently with Dr. Jeger’s report at the congress, the results also appeared in an article published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2018 Sep 8;392[10190]:849-56).



One limitation of the study was that the first 25% of patients enrolled into the DES arm received a first-generation DES, while the remaining 75% received a second-generation device. Analysis of the primary endpoint by DES type showed that events occurred more than twice as often in the patients who received a first-generation DES, and their inclusion may have affected the comparator group’s results.

Coronary arteries that need percutaneous intervention and are less than 3 mm in diameter constitute about a third of all target vessels, and they are especially common among women and in patients with diabetes, Dr. Jeger said. Despite this, women made up about a quarter of the study enrollment, and about a third had diabetes. He also noted that a key aspect of adopting the DCB approach into routine practice is that operators would need to have the “courage” to accept some amount of recoil and “minor” dissections after DCB treatment and not feel compelled to correct these with a stent.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other features of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial also have raised concerns about the immediate clinical implications of the results, said Roxana Mehran, MD, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and the congress’s designated discussant for the report.

The study began in 2012, which means it took more than 5 years to enroll and suggests that the study may have a selection bias. Dr. Mehran also questioned whether it was really a small vessel study, with an enrollment criterion of less than 3 mm in diameter. A future study should be done in “truly” small vessels, those thinner than 2.5 mm, she said.

Dr. Mehran agreed it’s attractive to speculate that, by using a DCB and avoiding stent placement, fewer patients will eventually have very-late adverse events, but this must be proven with longer follow-up and in larger numbers of patients, she said.

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Bosworth reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Bosworth reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Bosworth reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Diets promoting colonic inflammation were associated with a greater risk of colorectal carcinomas containing Fusobacterium nucleatum bacteria, according to a report in the October issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Courtesy American Gastroenterological Association

Proinflammatory diets were not linked to heightened risk for colon cancers without these bacteria, reported Li Liu, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These findings indicate that diet-induced intestinal inflammation alters the gut microbiome to contribute to colorectal carcinogenesis,” they wrote. “Nutritional interventions might be used in precision medicine and cancer prevention.”

Intestinal inflammation, a risk factor for colorectal cancer, is associated with high levels of circulating interleukin 6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor–receptor superfamily member 1B. Colonic inflammation impairs the mucosal barrier and alters immune cell responses, which affects the composition of colonic microbiota. Among these, F. nucleatum is known to potentiate colorectal tumors and is associated with proximal tumor location, other tumor features, and cancer progression and chemoresistance.

For the study, the investigators examined self-reported data from more than 124,000 individuals followed for 28 years as part of the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. They calculated average dietary patterns based on the empiric dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) score, which sums weighted intake scores for 18 foods (such as red and processed meat, coffee, tea, and leafy green or dark yellow vegetables) that are known to affect plasma levels of interleukin 6, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor–receptor superfamily member 1B, and tumor necrosis factor alpha–receptor 2. A higher EDIP score denotes a more inflammatory diet.

During the 28-year follow-up period, 951 individuals developed colorectal carcinomas that were tested with a polymerase chain reaction assay for F. nucleatum DNA. A total of 115 tumors tested positive for F. nucleatum. After the researchers controlled for potential confounders, individuals whose EDIP scores were in the highest tertile were significantly more likely to develop F. nucleatum–positive colorectal cancer than were those who scored in the lowest tertile (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.58; P = .03). This differential association “appeared to be stronger in proximal colon cancer than in distal colon and rectal cancer,” the researchers said.

More than 90% of individuals in this study were non-Hispanic white, the researchers noted. Tumor tissue was not available from all cases of colorectal cancer and a fairly small number of cases tested positive for tumor F. nucleatum. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that an inflammatory diet could help amplify gut microbiota involved in tumorigenesis, they said. Pending confirmatory studies, they recommended an anti-inflammatory diet with high intake of green leafy vegetables, dark yellow vegetables, coffee, and tea, and with low intake of red meat, processed meat, refined grain, and sugary beverages. They also recommended studying whether F. nucleatum tumor or stool tests could help personalize dietary interventions.

Funders included the National Institutes of Health, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer, Project P. Fund for Colorectal Cancer Research, Friends of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Bennett Family Fund, the Entertainment Industry Foundation, and American Association for Cancer Research, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Scholarship Council, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and others. Dr. Liu had no disclosures. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, Bayer, and several other biomedical companies.

SOURCE: Liu L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Apr 24. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.030.

Diets promoting colonic inflammation were associated with a greater risk of colorectal carcinomas containing Fusobacterium nucleatum bacteria, according to a report in the October issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Courtesy American Gastroenterological Association

Proinflammatory diets were not linked to heightened risk for colon cancers without these bacteria, reported Li Liu, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These findings indicate that diet-induced intestinal inflammation alters the gut microbiome to contribute to colorectal carcinogenesis,” they wrote. “Nutritional interventions might be used in precision medicine and cancer prevention.”

Intestinal inflammation, a risk factor for colorectal cancer, is associated with high levels of circulating interleukin 6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor–receptor superfamily member 1B. Colonic inflammation impairs the mucosal barrier and alters immune cell responses, which affects the composition of colonic microbiota. Among these, F. nucleatum is known to potentiate colorectal tumors and is associated with proximal tumor location, other tumor features, and cancer progression and chemoresistance.

For the study, the investigators examined self-reported data from more than 124,000 individuals followed for 28 years as part of the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. They calculated average dietary patterns based on the empiric dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) score, which sums weighted intake scores for 18 foods (such as red and processed meat, coffee, tea, and leafy green or dark yellow vegetables) that are known to affect plasma levels of interleukin 6, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor–receptor superfamily member 1B, and tumor necrosis factor alpha–receptor 2. A higher EDIP score denotes a more inflammatory diet.

During the 28-year follow-up period, 951 individuals developed colorectal carcinomas that were tested with a polymerase chain reaction assay for F. nucleatum DNA. A total of 115 tumors tested positive for F. nucleatum. After the researchers controlled for potential confounders, individuals whose EDIP scores were in the highest tertile were significantly more likely to develop F. nucleatum–positive colorectal cancer than were those who scored in the lowest tertile (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.58; P = .03). This differential association “appeared to be stronger in proximal colon cancer than in distal colon and rectal cancer,” the researchers said.

More than 90% of individuals in this study were non-Hispanic white, the researchers noted. Tumor tissue was not available from all cases of colorectal cancer and a fairly small number of cases tested positive for tumor F. nucleatum. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that an inflammatory diet could help amplify gut microbiota involved in tumorigenesis, they said. Pending confirmatory studies, they recommended an anti-inflammatory diet with high intake of green leafy vegetables, dark yellow vegetables, coffee, and tea, and with low intake of red meat, processed meat, refined grain, and sugary beverages. They also recommended studying whether F. nucleatum tumor or stool tests could help personalize dietary interventions.

Funders included the National Institutes of Health, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer, Project P. Fund for Colorectal Cancer Research, Friends of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Bennett Family Fund, the Entertainment Industry Foundation, and American Association for Cancer Research, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Scholarship Council, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and others. Dr. Liu had no disclosures. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, Bayer, and several other biomedical companies.

SOURCE: Liu L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Apr 24. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.030.

Diets promoting colonic inflammation were associated with a greater risk of colorectal carcinomas containing Fusobacterium nucleatum bacteria, according to a report in the October issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Courtesy American Gastroenterological Association

Proinflammatory diets were not linked to heightened risk for colon cancers without these bacteria, reported Li Liu, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These findings indicate that diet-induced intestinal inflammation alters the gut microbiome to contribute to colorectal carcinogenesis,” they wrote. “Nutritional interventions might be used in precision medicine and cancer prevention.”

Intestinal inflammation, a risk factor for colorectal cancer, is associated with high levels of circulating interleukin 6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor–receptor superfamily member 1B. Colonic inflammation impairs the mucosal barrier and alters immune cell responses, which affects the composition of colonic microbiota. Among these, F. nucleatum is known to potentiate colorectal tumors and is associated with proximal tumor location, other tumor features, and cancer progression and chemoresistance.

For the study, the investigators examined self-reported data from more than 124,000 individuals followed for 28 years as part of the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. They calculated average dietary patterns based on the empiric dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) score, which sums weighted intake scores for 18 foods (such as red and processed meat, coffee, tea, and leafy green or dark yellow vegetables) that are known to affect plasma levels of interleukin 6, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor–receptor superfamily member 1B, and tumor necrosis factor alpha–receptor 2. A higher EDIP score denotes a more inflammatory diet.

During the 28-year follow-up period, 951 individuals developed colorectal carcinomas that were tested with a polymerase chain reaction assay for F. nucleatum DNA. A total of 115 tumors tested positive for F. nucleatum. After the researchers controlled for potential confounders, individuals whose EDIP scores were in the highest tertile were significantly more likely to develop F. nucleatum–positive colorectal cancer than were those who scored in the lowest tertile (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.58; P = .03). This differential association “appeared to be stronger in proximal colon cancer than in distal colon and rectal cancer,” the researchers said.

More than 90% of individuals in this study were non-Hispanic white, the researchers noted. Tumor tissue was not available from all cases of colorectal cancer and a fairly small number of cases tested positive for tumor F. nucleatum. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that an inflammatory diet could help amplify gut microbiota involved in tumorigenesis, they said. Pending confirmatory studies, they recommended an anti-inflammatory diet with high intake of green leafy vegetables, dark yellow vegetables, coffee, and tea, and with low intake of red meat, processed meat, refined grain, and sugary beverages. They also recommended studying whether F. nucleatum tumor or stool tests could help personalize dietary interventions.

Funders included the National Institutes of Health, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer, Project P. Fund for Colorectal Cancer Research, Friends of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Bennett Family Fund, the Entertainment Industry Foundation, and American Association for Cancer Research, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Scholarship Council, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and others. Dr. Liu had no disclosures. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, Bayer, and several other biomedical companies.

SOURCE: Liu L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Apr 24. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.030.

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

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

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

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

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

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

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

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

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

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

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

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

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

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

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

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

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

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

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

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

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

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

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

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

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

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

[email protected]

CHICAGO – There’s another reason to worry about hypertension in children: cognitive decline later in life.

In a pilot study, Marc Lande, MD, a professor of pediatric nephrology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and his colleagues found evidence of impaired white matter integrity on MRI in a handful of hypertensive children, similar to what’s found in adults with cognitive impairment from hypertension.

The work is ongoing, but it helps explain the subtle deficits on cognitive testing that have been previously demonstrated in children with hypertension.

“The fact that we are finding anything at this very early stage of disease is striking and somewhat bothersome. The hope is that, by improving blood pressure in children, you can improve subsequent cognition and maybe even delay the onset of dementia further down the road,” Dr. Lande said.

For now, the findings underscore the need to diagnose and manage hypertension in children, but there might be additional treatment implications in the future, especially if blood pressure targets are found that ameliorate the problem.

Dr. Lande explained the issues and the emerging evidence in a video interview at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – There’s another reason to worry about hypertension in children: cognitive decline later in life.

In a pilot study, Marc Lande, MD, a professor of pediatric nephrology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and his colleagues found evidence of impaired white matter integrity on MRI in a handful of hypertensive children, similar to what’s found in adults with cognitive impairment from hypertension.

The work is ongoing, but it helps explain the subtle deficits on cognitive testing that have been previously demonstrated in children with hypertension.

“The fact that we are finding anything at this very early stage of disease is striking and somewhat bothersome. The hope is that, by improving blood pressure in children, you can improve subsequent cognition and maybe even delay the onset of dementia further down the road,” Dr. Lande said.

For now, the findings underscore the need to diagnose and manage hypertension in children, but there might be additional treatment implications in the future, especially if blood pressure targets are found that ameliorate the problem.

Dr. Lande explained the issues and the emerging evidence in a video interview at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – There’s another reason to worry about hypertension in children: cognitive decline later in life.

In a pilot study, Marc Lande, MD, a professor of pediatric nephrology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and his colleagues found evidence of impaired white matter integrity on MRI in a handful of hypertensive children, similar to what’s found in adults with cognitive impairment from hypertension.

The work is ongoing, but it helps explain the subtle deficits on cognitive testing that have been previously demonstrated in children with hypertension.

“The fact that we are finding anything at this very early stage of disease is striking and somewhat bothersome. The hope is that, by improving blood pressure in children, you can improve subsequent cognition and maybe even delay the onset of dementia further down the road,” Dr. Lande said.

For now, the findings underscore the need to diagnose and manage hypertension in children, but there might be additional treatment implications in the future, especially if blood pressure targets are found that ameliorate the problem.

Dr. Lande explained the issues and the emerging evidence in a video interview at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

[email protected]

A new study finds that piperacillin-tazobactam doesn’t improve mortality compared to meropenem in patients with ceftriaxone-resistant blood poisoning caused by E. coli or K. pneumoniae. The findings were so striking that the study was ended early.

Vidyard Video

Courtesy: JAMA

“These findings do not support use of piperacillin-tazobactam in this setting,” wrote the authors. The report was published Sept. 11 in JAMA (2018;320[10]:984-94.)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1,700 deaths in the United States in 2011 were caused by gram-negative bacteria that produce extended-spectrum beta-lactamase enzymes.

While carbapenems such as meropenem (Merrem) are “regarded as the treatment of choice for serious infections,” the MERINO trial (NCT02176122) authors wrote, their rising use could lead to drug resistance.

One alternate option is to embrace beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors such as piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn), the researchers noted, but research has produced conflicting results.

Piperacillin-tazobactam is an injected penicillin antibiotic used to treat conditions such as severe pneumonia, complicated urinary tract infections and complicated skin and soft tissue infections.

For the new study, researchers led by Patrick N. A. Harris, MBBS, of the University of Queensland, randomly assigned 188 patients to intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 6 hours) and 191 patients to meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) for 4-14 days, depending on clinician’s preference. (12 other patients did not continue with the study after initial randomization due to factors such as errors).

All patients were adults and had at least one blood test showing they were positive for E. coli or K. pneumoniae. They all had to be nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone (Rocephin) but susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam.

The study was ceased prior to enrollment because of the risk of harm. Interim findings suggested the study was unlikely to show higher effectiveness for piperacillin-tazobactam

The primary analysis included 379 patients (mean age 67 years, 48% were women), and the primary outcome analysis included 378 patients.

A total of 23 (12.3%) of 187 patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group died by 30 days compared to 7 (3.7%) of 191 in the meropenem group (risk difference: 8.6%, P = .90 for noninferiority).

By day 4, 68% of the piperacillin-tazobactam group and 75% of the meropenem group achieved clinical and microbiological resolution.

Serious adverse effects other than death were rare, occurring in around 3% of the piperacillin-tazobactam group and nearly 2% of the meropenem group.

The researchers note various limitations, including the unblinded nature of the study and the fact that it’s not known if extended or continuous infusions of piperacillin-tazobactam would boost the drug’s effectiveness. They also note that delays resulted in some patients initially receiving treatment with one of the study’s two drugs before being randomized to the other.

The study authors caution that it’s not clear if newer beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors agents such as ceftolozane-tazobactam or ceftazidime-avibactam may be effective in this population.

The study was funded by the University of Queensland, Australian Society for Antimicrobials, International Society for Chemotherapy, and National University Hospital Singapore. Various organizations funded the researchers and the study’s whole-genome sequencing. The study authors report various disclosures, including funding from drugmakers such as Pfizer, maker of Zosyn (through its subsidiary Wyeth) and Merrem.
 

SOURCE: Harris PNA et al. JAMA 2018 Sep 11;320[10]:984-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.12163.

A new study finds that piperacillin-tazobactam doesn’t improve mortality compared to meropenem in patients with ceftriaxone-resistant blood poisoning caused by E. coli or K. pneumoniae. The findings were so striking that the study was ended early.

Vidyard Video

Courtesy: JAMA

“These findings do not support use of piperacillin-tazobactam in this setting,” wrote the authors. The report was published Sept. 11 in JAMA (2018;320[10]:984-94.)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1,700 deaths in the United States in 2011 were caused by gram-negative bacteria that produce extended-spectrum beta-lactamase enzymes.

While carbapenems such as meropenem (Merrem) are “regarded as the treatment of choice for serious infections,” the MERINO trial (NCT02176122) authors wrote, their rising use could lead to drug resistance.

One alternate option is to embrace beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors such as piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn), the researchers noted, but research has produced conflicting results.

Piperacillin-tazobactam is an injected penicillin antibiotic used to treat conditions such as severe pneumonia, complicated urinary tract infections and complicated skin and soft tissue infections.

For the new study, researchers led by Patrick N. A. Harris, MBBS, of the University of Queensland, randomly assigned 188 patients to intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 6 hours) and 191 patients to meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) for 4-14 days, depending on clinician’s preference. (12 other patients did not continue with the study after initial randomization due to factors such as errors).

All patients were adults and had at least one blood test showing they were positive for E. coli or K. pneumoniae. They all had to be nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone (Rocephin) but susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam.

The study was ceased prior to enrollment because of the risk of harm. Interim findings suggested the study was unlikely to show higher effectiveness for piperacillin-tazobactam

The primary analysis included 379 patients (mean age 67 years, 48% were women), and the primary outcome analysis included 378 patients.

A total of 23 (12.3%) of 187 patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group died by 30 days compared to 7 (3.7%) of 191 in the meropenem group (risk difference: 8.6%, P = .90 for noninferiority).

By day 4, 68% of the piperacillin-tazobactam group and 75% of the meropenem group achieved clinical and microbiological resolution.

Serious adverse effects other than death were rare, occurring in around 3% of the piperacillin-tazobactam group and nearly 2% of the meropenem group.

The researchers note various limitations, including the unblinded nature of the study and the fact that it’s not known if extended or continuous infusions of piperacillin-tazobactam would boost the drug’s effectiveness. They also note that delays resulted in some patients initially receiving treatment with one of the study’s two drugs before being randomized to the other.

The study authors caution that it’s not clear if newer beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors agents such as ceftolozane-tazobactam or ceftazidime-avibactam may be effective in this population.

The study was funded by the University of Queensland, Australian Society for Antimicrobials, International Society for Chemotherapy, and National University Hospital Singapore. Various organizations funded the researchers and the study’s whole-genome sequencing. The study authors report various disclosures, including funding from drugmakers such as Pfizer, maker of Zosyn (through its subsidiary Wyeth) and Merrem.
 

SOURCE: Harris PNA et al. JAMA 2018 Sep 11;320[10]:984-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.12163.

A new study finds that piperacillin-tazobactam doesn’t improve mortality compared to meropenem in patients with ceftriaxone-resistant blood poisoning caused by E. coli or K. pneumoniae. The findings were so striking that the study was ended early.

Vidyard Video

Courtesy: JAMA

“These findings do not support use of piperacillin-tazobactam in this setting,” wrote the authors. The report was published Sept. 11 in JAMA (2018;320[10]:984-94.)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1,700 deaths in the United States in 2011 were caused by gram-negative bacteria that produce extended-spectrum beta-lactamase enzymes.

While carbapenems such as meropenem (Merrem) are “regarded as the treatment of choice for serious infections,” the MERINO trial (NCT02176122) authors wrote, their rising use could lead to drug resistance.

One alternate option is to embrace beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors such as piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn), the researchers noted, but research has produced conflicting results.

Piperacillin-tazobactam is an injected penicillin antibiotic used to treat conditions such as severe pneumonia, complicated urinary tract infections and complicated skin and soft tissue infections.

For the new study, researchers led by Patrick N. A. Harris, MBBS, of the University of Queensland, randomly assigned 188 patients to intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam (4.5 g every 6 hours) and 191 patients to meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) for 4-14 days, depending on clinician’s preference. (12 other patients did not continue with the study after initial randomization due to factors such as errors).

All patients were adults and had at least one blood test showing they were positive for E. coli or K. pneumoniae. They all had to be nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone (Rocephin) but susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam.

The study was ceased prior to enrollment because of the risk of harm. Interim findings suggested the study was unlikely to show higher effectiveness for piperacillin-tazobactam

The primary analysis included 379 patients (mean age 67 years, 48% were women), and the primary outcome analysis included 378 patients.

A total of 23 (12.3%) of 187 patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group died by 30 days compared to 7 (3.7%) of 191 in the meropenem group (risk difference: 8.6%, P = .90 for noninferiority).

By day 4, 68% of the piperacillin-tazobactam group and 75% of the meropenem group achieved clinical and microbiological resolution.

Serious adverse effects other than death were rare, occurring in around 3% of the piperacillin-tazobactam group and nearly 2% of the meropenem group.

The researchers note various limitations, including the unblinded nature of the study and the fact that it’s not known if extended or continuous infusions of piperacillin-tazobactam would boost the drug’s effectiveness. They also note that delays resulted in some patients initially receiving treatment with one of the study’s two drugs before being randomized to the other.

The study authors caution that it’s not clear if newer beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors agents such as ceftolozane-tazobactam or ceftazidime-avibactam may be effective in this population.

The study was funded by the University of Queensland, Australian Society for Antimicrobials, International Society for Chemotherapy, and National University Hospital Singapore. Various organizations funded the researchers and the study’s whole-genome sequencing. The study authors report various disclosures, including funding from drugmakers such as Pfizer, maker of Zosyn (through its subsidiary Wyeth) and Merrem.
 

SOURCE: Harris PNA et al. JAMA 2018 Sep 11;320[10]:984-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.12163.