User login
Statins boost glycemia slightly, but CVD benefits prevail
CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.
“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes
The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.
“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold
Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.
In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.
Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’
“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”
Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.
“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.
The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
No difference by statin type
The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.
The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.
These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.
Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.
The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.
CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.
“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes
The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.
“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold
Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.
In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.
Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’
“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”
Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.
“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.
The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
No difference by statin type
The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.
The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.
These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.
Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.
The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.
CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.
“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes
The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.
“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold
Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.
In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.
Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’
“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”
Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.
“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.
The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
No difference by statin type
The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.
The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.
These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.
Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.
The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.
AT AHA 2022
Dietary supplements hyped as LDL cholesterol lowering are a bust: SPORT
in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.
In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.
The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.
The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.
“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.
Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.
“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.
They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.
Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
How to message the results
The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.
But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”
The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”
At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.
“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.
“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”
But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”
In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”
SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
High adherence
Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.
They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.
The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).
Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.
Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.
Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.
None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.
There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”
Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.
Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.
In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.
The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.
The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.
“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.
Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.
“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.
They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.
Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
How to message the results
The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.
But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”
The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”
At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.
“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.
“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”
But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”
In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”
SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
High adherence
Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.
They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.
The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).
Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.
Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.
Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.
None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.
There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”
Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.
Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.
In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.
The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.
The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.
“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.
Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.
“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.
They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.
Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
How to message the results
The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.
But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”
The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”
At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.
“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.
“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”
But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”
In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”
SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
High adherence
Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.
They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.
The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).
Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.
Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.
Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.
None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.
There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”
Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.
Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AHA 2022
New trial suggests CV benefit with EPA: RESPECT-EPA
The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.
The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.
Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.
Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.
“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”
However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT.
“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease.
Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.
Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.
The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.
They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.
The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.
The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).
The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.
Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.
The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).
The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).
In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.
In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).
Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
‘Massive loss’ of patients
Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.
“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented.
“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.
The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”
On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
Supportive data
But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.
“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.
“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.
He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.
“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
Magnitude of benefit uncertain?
Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”
“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.
Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”
She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.
The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.
The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.
Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.
Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.
“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”
However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT.
“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease.
Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.
Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.
The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.
They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.
The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.
The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).
The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.
Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.
The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).
The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).
In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.
In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).
Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
‘Massive loss’ of patients
Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.
“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented.
“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.
The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”
On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
Supportive data
But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.
“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.
“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.
He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.
“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
Magnitude of benefit uncertain?
Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”
“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.
Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”
She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.
The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.
The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.
Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.
Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.
“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”
However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT.
“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease.
Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.
Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.
The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.
They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.
The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.
The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).
The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.
Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.
The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).
The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).
In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.
In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).
Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
‘Massive loss’ of patients
Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.
“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented.
“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.
The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”
On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
Supportive data
But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.
“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.
“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.
He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.
“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
Magnitude of benefit uncertain?
Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”
“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.
Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”
She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.
The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2022
Precision CAD testing shows 70% cut in composite risk at 1 year
Benefits accrue on multiple endpoints
CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.
The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.
Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
Strategy is simple but effective
Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.
After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.
In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care
In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.
Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.
Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).
In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.
Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.
New protocol called preferred approach
On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”
Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.
Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.
Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”
Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.
In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.
Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.
Benefits accrue on multiple endpoints
Benefits accrue on multiple endpoints
CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.
The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.
Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
Strategy is simple but effective
Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.
After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.
In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care
In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.
Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.
Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).
In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.
Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.
New protocol called preferred approach
On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”
Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.
Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.
Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”
Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.
In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.
Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.
CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.
The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.
Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
Strategy is simple but effective
Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.
After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.
In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care
In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.
Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.
Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).
In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.
Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.
New protocol called preferred approach
On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”
Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.
Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.
Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”
Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.
In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.
Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.
AT AHA 2022
ISCHEMIA-EXTEND: Conservative stable CAD management holds up
CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.
During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
Nil probability of a survival benefit
“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.
“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.
The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.
While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.
Follow-up without adjudication
The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.
The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.
However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.
“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.
Staying alive is what patients care about
“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.
But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.
“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”
But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.
“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management
After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.
“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”
To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.
ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.
CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.
During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
Nil probability of a survival benefit
“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.
“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.
The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.
While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.
Follow-up without adjudication
The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.
The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.
However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.
“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.
Staying alive is what patients care about
“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.
But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.
“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”
But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.
“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management
After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.
“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”
To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.
ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.
CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.
During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
Nil probability of a survival benefit
“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.
“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.
The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.
While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.
Follow-up without adjudication
The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.
The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.
However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.
“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.
Staying alive is what patients care about
“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.
But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.
“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”
But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.
“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management
After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.
“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”
To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.
ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.
AT AHA 2022
Moving the needle: SGLT2 inhibitor role for isolated kidney disease
ORLANDO – in a pivotal trial with more than 6,600 patients.
This confirms the efficacy for this population that was previously seen with dapagliflozin, another agent from the same class, in the DAPA-CKD trial.
In the new trial, EMPA-Kidney, treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg daily for a median of 2.0 years led to a significant 28% relative risk reduction in the primary combined endpoint in comparison with placebo, William G. Herrington, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
The results were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In 2020, a different team of researchers running DAPA-CKD reported that during a median of 2.4 years, treatment of 4,304 patients with dapagliflozin 10 mg daily resulted in a significant 39% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo for an identical combined primary endpoint. Enrollment criteria for the DAPA-CKD trial were mostly similar to that of the current trial.
‘Remarkably similar’ findings
Results from EMPA-Kidney and DAPA-CKD are “remarkably similar,” said Dr. Herrington during a press briefing at the meeting.
He also noted that when the EMPA-Kidney study began – before results from DAPA-CKD were known – “we never imagined such a large effect” on important endpoints in people with CKD.
In addition to cardiovascular death, the combined primary endpoint included the incidence of renal death, incident end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate to less than 10 mL/min per 1.73m2, or a sustained decrease in eGFR of at least 40% from baseline.
Having similar evidence from both trials “will hopefully provide people with the confidence to start to use SGLT2 inhibitors as standard care in people with CKD” who match enrollment criteria of the two trials, added Dr. Herrington, a nephrologist at the University of Oxford (England).
The analyses he reported also showed that empagliflozin had similar efficacy for the primary endpoint regardless of whether patients had type 2 diabetes at the time of enrollment and regardless of their eGFR at entry.
To enter EMPA-Kidney, people needed to have either an eGFR of 20-44 mL/min per 1.73m2 with no minimum level of albuminuria or an eGFR of 45-89 mL/min per 1.73m2 with a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 200 mg/g.
In contrast, to enroll in DAPA-CKD, patients had to have a UACR of at least 200 mg/g. This means that for the first time, EMPA-Kidney produced data on the relationship between albuminuria severity and the impact of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor in the enrolled population.
A signal of greater efficacy with higher UACR
A total of 6,609 patients underwent randomization in EMPA-Kidney. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint – progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes – occurred in 432 of 3,304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3,305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; P < .001).
The results “suggested that the effects [of empagliflozin] are greater in patients with higher levels of albuminuria, with statistically significant heterogeneity between this subgroup and those with a UACR of less than 200 mg/g (P = .02),” Dr. Herrington said.
Of the study population, 54% had no evidence of diabetes at enrollment.
Having data from a second large trial of an SGLT2 inhibitor that included people with isolated CKD who did not have diabetes or heart failure “will start to move the needle” on using this class of drugs in these types of patients, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
On the basis of the DAPA-CKD results, in April 2021 the Food and Drug Administration expanded dapagliflozin’s indications to include CKD, yet, “a lot of nephrologists consider SGLT2 inhibitors to be agents for people with diabetes or heart failure, and they defer prescribing them to endocrinologists and cardiologists,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.
‘Flozinators’ rising
But Pascale H. Lane, MD, a pediatric nephrologist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, commented that many nephrologists she knows have been prescribing dapagliflozin “widely” to their patients with CKD.
“I know many adult nephrologists who use it almost universally now,” Dr. Lane said. “They call themselves ‘flozinators.’ ”
EMPA-Kidney was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that along with Lilly markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Herrington, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Lane disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO – in a pivotal trial with more than 6,600 patients.
This confirms the efficacy for this population that was previously seen with dapagliflozin, another agent from the same class, in the DAPA-CKD trial.
In the new trial, EMPA-Kidney, treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg daily for a median of 2.0 years led to a significant 28% relative risk reduction in the primary combined endpoint in comparison with placebo, William G. Herrington, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
The results were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In 2020, a different team of researchers running DAPA-CKD reported that during a median of 2.4 years, treatment of 4,304 patients with dapagliflozin 10 mg daily resulted in a significant 39% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo for an identical combined primary endpoint. Enrollment criteria for the DAPA-CKD trial were mostly similar to that of the current trial.
‘Remarkably similar’ findings
Results from EMPA-Kidney and DAPA-CKD are “remarkably similar,” said Dr. Herrington during a press briefing at the meeting.
He also noted that when the EMPA-Kidney study began – before results from DAPA-CKD were known – “we never imagined such a large effect” on important endpoints in people with CKD.
In addition to cardiovascular death, the combined primary endpoint included the incidence of renal death, incident end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate to less than 10 mL/min per 1.73m2, or a sustained decrease in eGFR of at least 40% from baseline.
Having similar evidence from both trials “will hopefully provide people with the confidence to start to use SGLT2 inhibitors as standard care in people with CKD” who match enrollment criteria of the two trials, added Dr. Herrington, a nephrologist at the University of Oxford (England).
The analyses he reported also showed that empagliflozin had similar efficacy for the primary endpoint regardless of whether patients had type 2 diabetes at the time of enrollment and regardless of their eGFR at entry.
To enter EMPA-Kidney, people needed to have either an eGFR of 20-44 mL/min per 1.73m2 with no minimum level of albuminuria or an eGFR of 45-89 mL/min per 1.73m2 with a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 200 mg/g.
In contrast, to enroll in DAPA-CKD, patients had to have a UACR of at least 200 mg/g. This means that for the first time, EMPA-Kidney produced data on the relationship between albuminuria severity and the impact of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor in the enrolled population.
A signal of greater efficacy with higher UACR
A total of 6,609 patients underwent randomization in EMPA-Kidney. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint – progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes – occurred in 432 of 3,304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3,305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; P < .001).
The results “suggested that the effects [of empagliflozin] are greater in patients with higher levels of albuminuria, with statistically significant heterogeneity between this subgroup and those with a UACR of less than 200 mg/g (P = .02),” Dr. Herrington said.
Of the study population, 54% had no evidence of diabetes at enrollment.
Having data from a second large trial of an SGLT2 inhibitor that included people with isolated CKD who did not have diabetes or heart failure “will start to move the needle” on using this class of drugs in these types of patients, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
On the basis of the DAPA-CKD results, in April 2021 the Food and Drug Administration expanded dapagliflozin’s indications to include CKD, yet, “a lot of nephrologists consider SGLT2 inhibitors to be agents for people with diabetes or heart failure, and they defer prescribing them to endocrinologists and cardiologists,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.
‘Flozinators’ rising
But Pascale H. Lane, MD, a pediatric nephrologist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, commented that many nephrologists she knows have been prescribing dapagliflozin “widely” to their patients with CKD.
“I know many adult nephrologists who use it almost universally now,” Dr. Lane said. “They call themselves ‘flozinators.’ ”
EMPA-Kidney was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that along with Lilly markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Herrington, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Lane disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO – in a pivotal trial with more than 6,600 patients.
This confirms the efficacy for this population that was previously seen with dapagliflozin, another agent from the same class, in the DAPA-CKD trial.
In the new trial, EMPA-Kidney, treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg daily for a median of 2.0 years led to a significant 28% relative risk reduction in the primary combined endpoint in comparison with placebo, William G. Herrington, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
The results were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In 2020, a different team of researchers running DAPA-CKD reported that during a median of 2.4 years, treatment of 4,304 patients with dapagliflozin 10 mg daily resulted in a significant 39% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo for an identical combined primary endpoint. Enrollment criteria for the DAPA-CKD trial were mostly similar to that of the current trial.
‘Remarkably similar’ findings
Results from EMPA-Kidney and DAPA-CKD are “remarkably similar,” said Dr. Herrington during a press briefing at the meeting.
He also noted that when the EMPA-Kidney study began – before results from DAPA-CKD were known – “we never imagined such a large effect” on important endpoints in people with CKD.
In addition to cardiovascular death, the combined primary endpoint included the incidence of renal death, incident end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate to less than 10 mL/min per 1.73m2, or a sustained decrease in eGFR of at least 40% from baseline.
Having similar evidence from both trials “will hopefully provide people with the confidence to start to use SGLT2 inhibitors as standard care in people with CKD” who match enrollment criteria of the two trials, added Dr. Herrington, a nephrologist at the University of Oxford (England).
The analyses he reported also showed that empagliflozin had similar efficacy for the primary endpoint regardless of whether patients had type 2 diabetes at the time of enrollment and regardless of their eGFR at entry.
To enter EMPA-Kidney, people needed to have either an eGFR of 20-44 mL/min per 1.73m2 with no minimum level of albuminuria or an eGFR of 45-89 mL/min per 1.73m2 with a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 200 mg/g.
In contrast, to enroll in DAPA-CKD, patients had to have a UACR of at least 200 mg/g. This means that for the first time, EMPA-Kidney produced data on the relationship between albuminuria severity and the impact of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor in the enrolled population.
A signal of greater efficacy with higher UACR
A total of 6,609 patients underwent randomization in EMPA-Kidney. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint – progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes – occurred in 432 of 3,304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3,305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; P < .001).
The results “suggested that the effects [of empagliflozin] are greater in patients with higher levels of albuminuria, with statistically significant heterogeneity between this subgroup and those with a UACR of less than 200 mg/g (P = .02),” Dr. Herrington said.
Of the study population, 54% had no evidence of diabetes at enrollment.
Having data from a second large trial of an SGLT2 inhibitor that included people with isolated CKD who did not have diabetes or heart failure “will start to move the needle” on using this class of drugs in these types of patients, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
On the basis of the DAPA-CKD results, in April 2021 the Food and Drug Administration expanded dapagliflozin’s indications to include CKD, yet, “a lot of nephrologists consider SGLT2 inhibitors to be agents for people with diabetes or heart failure, and they defer prescribing them to endocrinologists and cardiologists,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.
‘Flozinators’ rising
But Pascale H. Lane, MD, a pediatric nephrologist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, commented that many nephrologists she knows have been prescribing dapagliflozin “widely” to their patients with CKD.
“I know many adult nephrologists who use it almost universally now,” Dr. Lane said. “They call themselves ‘flozinators.’ ”
EMPA-Kidney was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that along with Lilly markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Herrington, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Lane disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT KIDNEY WEEK 2022
In CABG, radial artery works best for second key graft: RAPCO at 15 years
Lower risk of MACE shown
CHICAGO – With more than 15 years of follow-up from two related trials, the best conduit for the second most important target vessel in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) appears to be resolved.
The radial artery (RA) graft is linked with a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) relative to a saphenous vein (SV) or the free right internal thoracic artery (FRITA).
On the basis of these findings, “a radial artery graft should be considered in all isolated CABG operations unless there are contraindications,” reported David L. Hare, MBBS, director of research in the department of cardiology, University of Melbourne.
For the primary graft, there is general agreement that the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) is the first choice for the left anterior descending vessel, but the optimal graft for the second most important target has never been established, according to Dr. Hare.
Almost 25 years ago, two randomized controlled trials called RAPCO-RITA and RAPCO-SV were initiated to address the question. There is now 15 years of follow-up for both of the RAPCO (Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes) trials, which were presented together at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Two trials conducted simultaneously
The RAPCO-RITA trial randomized CABG patients less than 70 years of age (less than 60 years in those with diabetes) to grafting of the second target vessel with an RA or FRITA graft. The RAPCO-SV trial randomized those 70 years or older (60 years or older with diabetes) to an RA or SV graft.
The two primary endpoints were graft patency at 10 years and a composite MACE at 10 years. The assessment of the MACE endpoint, which consisted of cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization, was later amended to include a comparison at 15 years.
Ten-year patency results, favoring the RA in both studies, were previously published in Circulation. In the new data presented at the meeting, the RA was associated with a significant reduction in MACE relative to the comparator graft in both studies.
“The main driver was a reduction in all-cause mortality,” Dr. Hare reported.
In RAPCO-RITA, 394 patients were randomized with follow-up data available for all but 1 patient at 15 years. Similarly, only 1 patient was lost to follow-up among the 225 randomized in RAPCO-SV. In both studies, baseline characteristics were well balanced.
MACE curves separate at 5 years
In RAPCO-RITA, the MACE survival curves began to separate at about 5 years and then gradually widened. By 15 years, the lower rate of MACE in the RA group (38% vs. 48%) translated into a 26% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .04).
In RAPCO-SV, the pattern was similar, by 15 years, the rates of MACE were 60% and 73% for the RA and SV groups, respectively, translating into a 29% relative reduction (HR, 0.71; P = .04).
There was no heterogeneity in benefit across prespecified subgroups such as presence or absence of diabetes, gender, or age. In RAPCO-RITA, there was 8% absolute and 31% relative reduction in all-cause mortality. In RAPCO-SV, the absolute and relative reductions were 11% and 26%.
When the trial was initiated, Dr. Hare hypothesized that RITA would prove more durable than RA, so the outcome was not anticipated.
“This is the first randomized controlled trial program to address the question,” said Dr. Hare, who noted that there have been numerous retrospective and case control analyses that have produced mixed results in the past.
Discussant praises trial quality
The AHA-invited discussant, Marc Ruel, MD, chair of cardiac surgery, University of Ottawa (Ont.) Heart Institute, called these data “important,” and he congratulated Dr. Hare for conducting the first randomized trial to address the question about second graft durability.
However, he noted that, although the study was randomized, it was not blinded, and he questioned whether postoperative care, in particular, was similar. He also pointed out that the MACE rate seemed high, particularly among the older patients randomized in RAPCO-SV.
“All of the patients were referred to an independently run CABG rehab program that was quite separate from the trial but that provided identical mandated care,” Dr. Hare responded, indicating that there was no opportunity for differences in postprocedural management.
In the United States, the SV graft is often preferred on the basis of easy harvesting and handling characteristics, according to Dr. Hare, who estimated that fewer than 10% of the 200,000 CABG procedures performed in the United States employ the RA conduit for second target vessels. He believes the RAPCO trials data support a change.
“My personal view is [that, on the basis of] this data, given that it is from a controlled trial rather than from patient-level meta-analyses, all isolated CABG operations should be using a radial graft if it is suitable,” Dr. Hare said.
Dr. Hare reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL-Biotherapies, Lundbeck, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Ruel reports financial relationships with Cryolife, Edwards, and Medtronic.
Lower risk of MACE shown
Lower risk of MACE shown
CHICAGO – With more than 15 years of follow-up from two related trials, the best conduit for the second most important target vessel in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) appears to be resolved.
The radial artery (RA) graft is linked with a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) relative to a saphenous vein (SV) or the free right internal thoracic artery (FRITA).
On the basis of these findings, “a radial artery graft should be considered in all isolated CABG operations unless there are contraindications,” reported David L. Hare, MBBS, director of research in the department of cardiology, University of Melbourne.
For the primary graft, there is general agreement that the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) is the first choice for the left anterior descending vessel, but the optimal graft for the second most important target has never been established, according to Dr. Hare.
Almost 25 years ago, two randomized controlled trials called RAPCO-RITA and RAPCO-SV were initiated to address the question. There is now 15 years of follow-up for both of the RAPCO (Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes) trials, which were presented together at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Two trials conducted simultaneously
The RAPCO-RITA trial randomized CABG patients less than 70 years of age (less than 60 years in those with diabetes) to grafting of the second target vessel with an RA or FRITA graft. The RAPCO-SV trial randomized those 70 years or older (60 years or older with diabetes) to an RA or SV graft.
The two primary endpoints were graft patency at 10 years and a composite MACE at 10 years. The assessment of the MACE endpoint, which consisted of cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization, was later amended to include a comparison at 15 years.
Ten-year patency results, favoring the RA in both studies, were previously published in Circulation. In the new data presented at the meeting, the RA was associated with a significant reduction in MACE relative to the comparator graft in both studies.
“The main driver was a reduction in all-cause mortality,” Dr. Hare reported.
In RAPCO-RITA, 394 patients were randomized with follow-up data available for all but 1 patient at 15 years. Similarly, only 1 patient was lost to follow-up among the 225 randomized in RAPCO-SV. In both studies, baseline characteristics were well balanced.
MACE curves separate at 5 years
In RAPCO-RITA, the MACE survival curves began to separate at about 5 years and then gradually widened. By 15 years, the lower rate of MACE in the RA group (38% vs. 48%) translated into a 26% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .04).
In RAPCO-SV, the pattern was similar, by 15 years, the rates of MACE were 60% and 73% for the RA and SV groups, respectively, translating into a 29% relative reduction (HR, 0.71; P = .04).
There was no heterogeneity in benefit across prespecified subgroups such as presence or absence of diabetes, gender, or age. In RAPCO-RITA, there was 8% absolute and 31% relative reduction in all-cause mortality. In RAPCO-SV, the absolute and relative reductions were 11% and 26%.
When the trial was initiated, Dr. Hare hypothesized that RITA would prove more durable than RA, so the outcome was not anticipated.
“This is the first randomized controlled trial program to address the question,” said Dr. Hare, who noted that there have been numerous retrospective and case control analyses that have produced mixed results in the past.
Discussant praises trial quality
The AHA-invited discussant, Marc Ruel, MD, chair of cardiac surgery, University of Ottawa (Ont.) Heart Institute, called these data “important,” and he congratulated Dr. Hare for conducting the first randomized trial to address the question about second graft durability.
However, he noted that, although the study was randomized, it was not blinded, and he questioned whether postoperative care, in particular, was similar. He also pointed out that the MACE rate seemed high, particularly among the older patients randomized in RAPCO-SV.
“All of the patients were referred to an independently run CABG rehab program that was quite separate from the trial but that provided identical mandated care,” Dr. Hare responded, indicating that there was no opportunity for differences in postprocedural management.
In the United States, the SV graft is often preferred on the basis of easy harvesting and handling characteristics, according to Dr. Hare, who estimated that fewer than 10% of the 200,000 CABG procedures performed in the United States employ the RA conduit for second target vessels. He believes the RAPCO trials data support a change.
“My personal view is [that, on the basis of] this data, given that it is from a controlled trial rather than from patient-level meta-analyses, all isolated CABG operations should be using a radial graft if it is suitable,” Dr. Hare said.
Dr. Hare reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL-Biotherapies, Lundbeck, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Ruel reports financial relationships with Cryolife, Edwards, and Medtronic.
CHICAGO – With more than 15 years of follow-up from two related trials, the best conduit for the second most important target vessel in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) appears to be resolved.
The radial artery (RA) graft is linked with a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) relative to a saphenous vein (SV) or the free right internal thoracic artery (FRITA).
On the basis of these findings, “a radial artery graft should be considered in all isolated CABG operations unless there are contraindications,” reported David L. Hare, MBBS, director of research in the department of cardiology, University of Melbourne.
For the primary graft, there is general agreement that the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) is the first choice for the left anterior descending vessel, but the optimal graft for the second most important target has never been established, according to Dr. Hare.
Almost 25 years ago, two randomized controlled trials called RAPCO-RITA and RAPCO-SV were initiated to address the question. There is now 15 years of follow-up for both of the RAPCO (Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes) trials, which were presented together at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Two trials conducted simultaneously
The RAPCO-RITA trial randomized CABG patients less than 70 years of age (less than 60 years in those with diabetes) to grafting of the second target vessel with an RA or FRITA graft. The RAPCO-SV trial randomized those 70 years or older (60 years or older with diabetes) to an RA or SV graft.
The two primary endpoints were graft patency at 10 years and a composite MACE at 10 years. The assessment of the MACE endpoint, which consisted of cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization, was later amended to include a comparison at 15 years.
Ten-year patency results, favoring the RA in both studies, were previously published in Circulation. In the new data presented at the meeting, the RA was associated with a significant reduction in MACE relative to the comparator graft in both studies.
“The main driver was a reduction in all-cause mortality,” Dr. Hare reported.
In RAPCO-RITA, 394 patients were randomized with follow-up data available for all but 1 patient at 15 years. Similarly, only 1 patient was lost to follow-up among the 225 randomized in RAPCO-SV. In both studies, baseline characteristics were well balanced.
MACE curves separate at 5 years
In RAPCO-RITA, the MACE survival curves began to separate at about 5 years and then gradually widened. By 15 years, the lower rate of MACE in the RA group (38% vs. 48%) translated into a 26% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .04).
In RAPCO-SV, the pattern was similar, by 15 years, the rates of MACE were 60% and 73% for the RA and SV groups, respectively, translating into a 29% relative reduction (HR, 0.71; P = .04).
There was no heterogeneity in benefit across prespecified subgroups such as presence or absence of diabetes, gender, or age. In RAPCO-RITA, there was 8% absolute and 31% relative reduction in all-cause mortality. In RAPCO-SV, the absolute and relative reductions were 11% and 26%.
When the trial was initiated, Dr. Hare hypothesized that RITA would prove more durable than RA, so the outcome was not anticipated.
“This is the first randomized controlled trial program to address the question,” said Dr. Hare, who noted that there have been numerous retrospective and case control analyses that have produced mixed results in the past.
Discussant praises trial quality
The AHA-invited discussant, Marc Ruel, MD, chair of cardiac surgery, University of Ottawa (Ont.) Heart Institute, called these data “important,” and he congratulated Dr. Hare for conducting the first randomized trial to address the question about second graft durability.
However, he noted that, although the study was randomized, it was not blinded, and he questioned whether postoperative care, in particular, was similar. He also pointed out that the MACE rate seemed high, particularly among the older patients randomized in RAPCO-SV.
“All of the patients were referred to an independently run CABG rehab program that was quite separate from the trial but that provided identical mandated care,” Dr. Hare responded, indicating that there was no opportunity for differences in postprocedural management.
In the United States, the SV graft is often preferred on the basis of easy harvesting and handling characteristics, according to Dr. Hare, who estimated that fewer than 10% of the 200,000 CABG procedures performed in the United States employ the RA conduit for second target vessels. He believes the RAPCO trials data support a change.
“My personal view is [that, on the basis of] this data, given that it is from a controlled trial rather than from patient-level meta-analyses, all isolated CABG operations should be using a radial graft if it is suitable,” Dr. Hare said.
Dr. Hare reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL-Biotherapies, Lundbeck, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Ruel reports financial relationships with Cryolife, Edwards, and Medtronic.
AT AHA 2022
Diuretic agents equal to prevent CV events in hypertension: DCP
There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.
The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.
There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.
However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.
The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.
Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”
But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”
“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”
Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
Pragmatic study
The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.
“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”
Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.
Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.
In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).
There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.
In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?
In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).
“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”
He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”
Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.
“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”
Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.
“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”
Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.
She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.
“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.
Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.
He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”
Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.
These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.
The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.
The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.
There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.
However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.
The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.
Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”
But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”
“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”
Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
Pragmatic study
The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.
“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”
Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.
Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.
In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).
There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.
In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?
In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).
“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”
He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”
Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.
“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”
Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.
“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”
Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.
She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.
“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.
Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.
He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”
Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.
These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.
The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.
The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.
There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.
However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.
The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.
Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”
But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”
“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”
Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
Pragmatic study
The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.
“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”
Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.
Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.
In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).
There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.
In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?
In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).
“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”
He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”
Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.
“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”
Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.
“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”
Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.
She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.
“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.
Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.
He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”
Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.
These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.
The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2022
Triglyceride-lowering fails to show CV benefit in large fibrate trial
Twenty-five percent reduction has no effect
CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.
It is the most recent in a series of trials that have failed to associate a meaningful reduction in TGs with protection from a composite MACE endpoint. This is a pattern that dates back 20 years, even though earlier trials did suggest that hypertriglyceridemia was a targetable risk factor.
No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era
“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.
In the statin era, which began soon after the Helsinki Heart Study was published in 1987, Dr. Watson counted at least five studies with fibrates that had a null result.
In the setting of good control of LDL cholesterol, “fibrates have not been shown to further lower CV risk,” said Dr. Watson, who was invited by the AHA to discuss the PROMINENT trial.
In PROMINENT, 10,497 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to pemafibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor a (PPAR-a) agonist, or placebo. Pemafibrate is not currently available in North America or Europe, but it is licensed in Japan for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.
The primary efficacy endpoint of the double-blind trial was a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death.
The patients were eligible if they had TG levels from 200 to 400 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol levels of 40 mg/dL or below. Pemafibrate in a dose of 0.2 mg or placebo were taken twice daily. About two-thirds had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The goal was primary prevention in the remainder.
After a median follow-up of 3.4 years when the study was stopped for futility, the proportion of patients reaching a primary endpoint was slightly greater in the experimental arm (3.60 vs. 3.51 events per 100 patient-years). The hazard ratio, although not significant, was nominally in favor of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .67).
When events within the composite endpoint were assessed individually, there was no signal of benefit for any outcome. The rates of death from any cause, although numerically higher in the pemafibrate group (2.44 vs. 2.34 per 100 patient years), were also comparable.
Lipid profile improved as predicted
Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.
Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.
The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.
The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.
He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.
“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.
Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.
Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.
Twenty-five percent reduction has no effect
Twenty-five percent reduction has no effect
CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.
It is the most recent in a series of trials that have failed to associate a meaningful reduction in TGs with protection from a composite MACE endpoint. This is a pattern that dates back 20 years, even though earlier trials did suggest that hypertriglyceridemia was a targetable risk factor.
No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era
“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.
In the statin era, which began soon after the Helsinki Heart Study was published in 1987, Dr. Watson counted at least five studies with fibrates that had a null result.
In the setting of good control of LDL cholesterol, “fibrates have not been shown to further lower CV risk,” said Dr. Watson, who was invited by the AHA to discuss the PROMINENT trial.
In PROMINENT, 10,497 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to pemafibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor a (PPAR-a) agonist, or placebo. Pemafibrate is not currently available in North America or Europe, but it is licensed in Japan for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.
The primary efficacy endpoint of the double-blind trial was a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death.
The patients were eligible if they had TG levels from 200 to 400 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol levels of 40 mg/dL or below. Pemafibrate in a dose of 0.2 mg or placebo were taken twice daily. About two-thirds had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The goal was primary prevention in the remainder.
After a median follow-up of 3.4 years when the study was stopped for futility, the proportion of patients reaching a primary endpoint was slightly greater in the experimental arm (3.60 vs. 3.51 events per 100 patient-years). The hazard ratio, although not significant, was nominally in favor of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .67).
When events within the composite endpoint were assessed individually, there was no signal of benefit for any outcome. The rates of death from any cause, although numerically higher in the pemafibrate group (2.44 vs. 2.34 per 100 patient years), were also comparable.
Lipid profile improved as predicted
Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.
Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.
The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.
The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.
He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.
“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.
Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.
Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.
CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.
It is the most recent in a series of trials that have failed to associate a meaningful reduction in TGs with protection from a composite MACE endpoint. This is a pattern that dates back 20 years, even though earlier trials did suggest that hypertriglyceridemia was a targetable risk factor.
No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era
“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.
In the statin era, which began soon after the Helsinki Heart Study was published in 1987, Dr. Watson counted at least five studies with fibrates that had a null result.
In the setting of good control of LDL cholesterol, “fibrates have not been shown to further lower CV risk,” said Dr. Watson, who was invited by the AHA to discuss the PROMINENT trial.
In PROMINENT, 10,497 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to pemafibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor a (PPAR-a) agonist, or placebo. Pemafibrate is not currently available in North America or Europe, but it is licensed in Japan for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.
The primary efficacy endpoint of the double-blind trial was a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death.
The patients were eligible if they had TG levels from 200 to 400 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol levels of 40 mg/dL or below. Pemafibrate in a dose of 0.2 mg or placebo were taken twice daily. About two-thirds had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The goal was primary prevention in the remainder.
After a median follow-up of 3.4 years when the study was stopped for futility, the proportion of patients reaching a primary endpoint was slightly greater in the experimental arm (3.60 vs. 3.51 events per 100 patient-years). The hazard ratio, although not significant, was nominally in favor of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .67).
When events within the composite endpoint were assessed individually, there was no signal of benefit for any outcome. The rates of death from any cause, although numerically higher in the pemafibrate group (2.44 vs. 2.34 per 100 patient years), were also comparable.
Lipid profile improved as predicted
Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.
Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.
The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.
The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.
He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.
“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.
Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.
Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.
AT AHA 2022
Marital stress tied to worse outcome in young MI patients
Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.
Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.
These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).
A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).
Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.
Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.
According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”
This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.
The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.
“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”
Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?
Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.
However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.
To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.
The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.
VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.
In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.
The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.
Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.
The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).
At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.
Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.
In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.
Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.
The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”
“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.
The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.
Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.
These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).
A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).
Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.
Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.
According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”
This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.
The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.
“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”
Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?
Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.
However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.
To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.
The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.
VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.
In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.
The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.
Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.
The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).
At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.
Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.
In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.
Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.
The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”
“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.
The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.
Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.
These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).
A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).
Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.
Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.
According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”
This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.
The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.
“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”
Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?
Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.
However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.
To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.
The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.
VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.
In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.
The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.
Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.
The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).
At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.
Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.
In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.
Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.
The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”
“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.
The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2022