CAD & Atherosclerosis

Healthy lifestyle changes to reduce systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg may prevent 26,000 heart attacks and strokes and reduce health care costs over the next 10 years, a new simulation study suggests.

Among the various lifestyle changes, adopting the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet, known as the DASH diet, may have the greatest impact for young and middle-aged adults with stage 1 hypertension.

“This research reveals that we should look to feasible ways our food system could make healthy eating the default option,” Kendra Sims, PhD, MPH, postdoctoral fellow at University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

“Above all, it means collaborating with the patient about nourishing choices that fit best into their culture and lifestyle,” Dr. Sims said.
 

Be proactive

“What is important is that people not wait until they have hypertension to start thinking about healthful diets,” commented Taylor Wallace, PhD, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., who was not involved in the study.

“It’s all about prevention in my mind. Whether you are hypertensive or are perfectly healthy, the DASH diet or any other dietary pattern that emphasizes consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, seafood, nuts/seeds, and low/non-fat dairy and decreased intake of saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium is a good idea,” Dr. Wallace said in an interview.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.

Dr. Sims and colleagues used U.S. statistics from multiple sources to simulate CVD events, mortality, and health care costs between 2018 and 2027 in adults aged 35-64 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension, defined as systolic BP of 130 to 139 mm Hg. 

The researchers estimate that 8.8 million U.S. adults (5.5 million women) aged 35-64 years have untreated stage 1 hypertension and would be recommended for lifestyle change, such as physical activity, weight loss, moderating alcohol intake, and adoption of the DASH diet.

Controlling blood pressure to less than 130 mm Hg in this population could prevent 26,000 CVD events, avoid 2,900 deaths, and lead to $1.6 billion saved in associated health care costs, the researchers calculate.

The largest benefit would come from adoption of the DASH diet, with an estimated 15,000 CVD events prevented among men and 11,000 among women.
 

Even small changes can help

“Young and middle-aged adults with stage 1 hypertension aren’t as low risk as you – or even your doctor – might think,” Dr. Sims told this news organization.

“Millions of working-aged people are walking around with elevated blood pressure, which is symptomless but is also a leading preventable cause of disability and death. Most do not follow the recommended DASH diet,” Dr. Sims said.

“Unfortunately, the availability and affordability of healthy food sources does not easily allow people to follow the DASH diet,” Dr. Sims adds in a conference news release.

“Clinicians should consider whether their patients live in food deserts or places with limited walkability. Health counseling should include addressing these specific challenges to blood pressure control,” Dr. Sims says.

Dr. Wallace noted that diet changes don’t have to be drastic.

“Honestly, just increasing fruit and vegetable intake has been shown to displace calories from saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium,” he told this news organization.

“It’s hard for people to stick to ‘diets’ long-term, so shifting toward healthier dietary patterns without having to read a book on the DASH diet or count calories and carbs seems like a more practical solution for the general population, although I have no issues with the DASH diet and think it is a great dietary pattern for heart health,” Dr. Wallace said.

The study had no funding. Dr. Sims reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and advisory board member with Forbes Health.

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

Healthy lifestyle changes to reduce systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg may prevent 26,000 heart attacks and strokes and reduce health care costs over the next 10 years, a new simulation study suggests.

Among the various lifestyle changes, adopting the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet, known as the DASH diet, may have the greatest impact for young and middle-aged adults with stage 1 hypertension.

“This research reveals that we should look to feasible ways our food system could make healthy eating the default option,” Kendra Sims, PhD, MPH, postdoctoral fellow at University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

“Above all, it means collaborating with the patient about nourishing choices that fit best into their culture and lifestyle,” Dr. Sims said.
 

Be proactive

“What is important is that people not wait until they have hypertension to start thinking about healthful diets,” commented Taylor Wallace, PhD, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., who was not involved in the study.

“It’s all about prevention in my mind. Whether you are hypertensive or are perfectly healthy, the DASH diet or any other dietary pattern that emphasizes consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, seafood, nuts/seeds, and low/non-fat dairy and decreased intake of saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium is a good idea,” Dr. Wallace said in an interview.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.

Dr. Sims and colleagues used U.S. statistics from multiple sources to simulate CVD events, mortality, and health care costs between 2018 and 2027 in adults aged 35-64 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension, defined as systolic BP of 130 to 139 mm Hg. 

The researchers estimate that 8.8 million U.S. adults (5.5 million women) aged 35-64 years have untreated stage 1 hypertension and would be recommended for lifestyle change, such as physical activity, weight loss, moderating alcohol intake, and adoption of the DASH diet.

Controlling blood pressure to less than 130 mm Hg in this population could prevent 26,000 CVD events, avoid 2,900 deaths, and lead to $1.6 billion saved in associated health care costs, the researchers calculate.

The largest benefit would come from adoption of the DASH diet, with an estimated 15,000 CVD events prevented among men and 11,000 among women.
 

Even small changes can help

“Young and middle-aged adults with stage 1 hypertension aren’t as low risk as you – or even your doctor – might think,” Dr. Sims told this news organization.

“Millions of working-aged people are walking around with elevated blood pressure, which is symptomless but is also a leading preventable cause of disability and death. Most do not follow the recommended DASH diet,” Dr. Sims said.

“Unfortunately, the availability and affordability of healthy food sources does not easily allow people to follow the DASH diet,” Dr. Sims adds in a conference news release.

“Clinicians should consider whether their patients live in food deserts or places with limited walkability. Health counseling should include addressing these specific challenges to blood pressure control,” Dr. Sims says.

Dr. Wallace noted that diet changes don’t have to be drastic.

“Honestly, just increasing fruit and vegetable intake has been shown to displace calories from saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium,” he told this news organization.

“It’s hard for people to stick to ‘diets’ long-term, so shifting toward healthier dietary patterns without having to read a book on the DASH diet or count calories and carbs seems like a more practical solution for the general population, although I have no issues with the DASH diet and think it is a great dietary pattern for heart health,” Dr. Wallace said.

The study had no funding. Dr. Sims reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and advisory board member with Forbes Health.

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

Healthy lifestyle changes to reduce systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg may prevent 26,000 heart attacks and strokes and reduce health care costs over the next 10 years, a new simulation study suggests.

Among the various lifestyle changes, adopting the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet, known as the DASH diet, may have the greatest impact for young and middle-aged adults with stage 1 hypertension.

“This research reveals that we should look to feasible ways our food system could make healthy eating the default option,” Kendra Sims, PhD, MPH, postdoctoral fellow at University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

“Above all, it means collaborating with the patient about nourishing choices that fit best into their culture and lifestyle,” Dr. Sims said.
 

Be proactive

“What is important is that people not wait until they have hypertension to start thinking about healthful diets,” commented Taylor Wallace, PhD, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., who was not involved in the study.

“It’s all about prevention in my mind. Whether you are hypertensive or are perfectly healthy, the DASH diet or any other dietary pattern that emphasizes consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, seafood, nuts/seeds, and low/non-fat dairy and decreased intake of saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium is a good idea,” Dr. Wallace said in an interview.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.

Dr. Sims and colleagues used U.S. statistics from multiple sources to simulate CVD events, mortality, and health care costs between 2018 and 2027 in adults aged 35-64 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension, defined as systolic BP of 130 to 139 mm Hg. 

The researchers estimate that 8.8 million U.S. adults (5.5 million women) aged 35-64 years have untreated stage 1 hypertension and would be recommended for lifestyle change, such as physical activity, weight loss, moderating alcohol intake, and adoption of the DASH diet.

Controlling blood pressure to less than 130 mm Hg in this population could prevent 26,000 CVD events, avoid 2,900 deaths, and lead to $1.6 billion saved in associated health care costs, the researchers calculate.

The largest benefit would come from adoption of the DASH diet, with an estimated 15,000 CVD events prevented among men and 11,000 among women.
 

Even small changes can help

“Young and middle-aged adults with stage 1 hypertension aren’t as low risk as you – or even your doctor – might think,” Dr. Sims told this news organization.

“Millions of working-aged people are walking around with elevated blood pressure, which is symptomless but is also a leading preventable cause of disability and death. Most do not follow the recommended DASH diet,” Dr. Sims said.

“Unfortunately, the availability and affordability of healthy food sources does not easily allow people to follow the DASH diet,” Dr. Sims adds in a conference news release.

“Clinicians should consider whether their patients live in food deserts or places with limited walkability. Health counseling should include addressing these specific challenges to blood pressure control,” Dr. Sims says.

Dr. Wallace noted that diet changes don’t have to be drastic.

“Honestly, just increasing fruit and vegetable intake has been shown to displace calories from saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium,” he told this news organization.

“It’s hard for people to stick to ‘diets’ long-term, so shifting toward healthier dietary patterns without having to read a book on the DASH diet or count calories and carbs seems like a more practical solution for the general population, although I have no issues with the DASH diet and think it is a great dietary pattern for heart health,” Dr. Wallace said.

The study had no funding. Dr. Sims reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and advisory board member with Forbes Health.

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

New research shows that “polypills” can prevent a combination of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths among patients who have recently experienced a myocardial infarction.

But results from the SECURE trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also raise questions.

How do the polypills reduce cardiovascular problems? And will they ever be available in the United States?

Questions about how they work center on a mystery in the trial data: the polypill – containing aspirin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and a statin – apparently conferred substantial cardiovascular protection while producing average blood pressure and lipid levels that were virtually the same as with usual care.

As to when polypills will be available, the answer may hinge on whether companies, government agencies, or philanthropic foundations come to see making and paying for such treatments – combinations of typically inexpensive generic drugs in a single pill for the sake of convenience and greater adherence – as financially worthwhile.
 

A matter of adherence?

In the SECURE trial, presented late August at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona, investigators randomly assigned 2,499 patients with an MI in the previous 6 months to receive usual care or a polypill.

Patients in the usual-care group typically received the same types of treatments included the polypill, only taken separately. Different versions of the polypill were available to allow for titration to tolerated doses of the component medications: aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 mg or 40 mg).

Researchers used the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale to gauge participants’ adherence to their medication regimen and found the polypill group was more adherent. Patients who received the polypill were more likely to have a high level of adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%), they reported. (The Morisky tool is the subject of some controversy because of aggressive licensing tactics of its creator.)

The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or urgent revascularization was significantly less likely in the polypill group during a median of 3 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .02).

“A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1,237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1,229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group,” the researchers report.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Valentin Fuster, MD, physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who led the study, said at ESC 2022.

Still, some clinicians were left scratching their heads by the lack of difference between treatment groups in average blood pressure and levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

In the group that received the polypill, average systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 24 months were 135.2 mmHg and 74.8 mmHg, respectively. In the group that received usual care, those values were 135.5 mmHg and 74.9 mmHg, respectively.

Likewise, “no substantial differences were found in LDL-cholesterol levels over time between the groups, with a mean value at 24 months of 67.7 mg/dL in the polypill group and 67.2 mg/dL in the usual-care group,” according to the researchers.

One explanation for the findings is that greater adherence led to beneficial effects that were not reflected in lipid and blood pressure measurements, the investigators said. Alternatively, the open-label trial design could have led to different health behaviors between groups, they suggested.

Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she loves the idea of polypills. But she wonders about the lack of difference in blood pressure and lipids in SECURE.

Dr. Gulati said she sees in practice how medication adherence and measurements of blood pressure and lipids typically go hand in hand.

When a patient initially responds to a medication, but then their LDL cholesterol goes up later, “my first question is, ‘Are you still taking your medication or how frequently are you taking it?’” Dr. Gulati said in an interview. “And I get all kinds of answers.”

“If you are more adherent, why wouldn’t your LDL actually be lower, and why wouldn’t your blood pressure be lower?” she asked.
 

Can the results be replicated?

Ethan J. Weiss, MD, a cardiologist and volunteer associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the SECURE results are “spectacular,” but the seeming disconnect with the biomarker measurements “doesn’t make for a clean story.”

“It just seems like if you are making an argument that this is a way to improve compliance ... you would see some evidence of improved compliance objectively” in the biomarker readings, Dr. Weiss said.

Trying to understand how the polypill worked requires more imagination. “Or it makes you just say, ‘Who cares what the mechanism is?’ These people did a lot better, full stop, and that’s all that matters,” he said.

Dr. Weiss said he expects some degree of replication of the results may be needed before practice changes.

To Steven E. Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Cleveland Clinic, the results “don’t make any sense.”

“If they got the same results on the biomarkers that the pill was designed to intervene upon, why are the [primary outcome] results different? It’s completely unexplained,” Dr. Nissen said.

In general, Dr. Nissen has not been an advocate of the polypill approach in higher-income countries.

“Medicine is all about customization of therapy,” he said. “Not everybody needs blood pressure lowering. Not everybody needs the same intensity of LDL reduction. We spend much of our lives seeing patients and treating their blood pressure, and if it doesn’t come down adequately, giving them a higher dose or adding another agent.”

Polypills might be reasonable for primary prevention in countries where people have less access to health care resources, he added. In such settings, a low-cost, simple treatment strategy might have benefit.

But Dr. Nissen still doesn’t see a role for a polypill in secondary prevention.

“I think we have to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look very carefully at the science and try to understand whether this, in fact, is sensible,” he said. “We may need another study to see if this can be replicated.”

For Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, the results of the SECURE trial offer an opportunity to rekindle conversations about the use of polypills for cardiovascular protection. These conversations and studies have been taking place for nearly two decades.

Dr. Kazi, associate director of the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, has used models to study the expected cost-effectiveness of polypills in various countries.

Although polypills can improve patients’ adherence to their prescribed medications, Dr. Kazi and colleagues have found that treatment gaps are “often at the physician level,” with many patients not prescribed all of the medications from which they could benefit.

Availability of polypills could help address those gaps. At the same time, many patients, even those with higher incomes, may have a strong preference for taking a single pill.

Dr. Kazi’s research also shows that a polypill approach may be more economically attractive as countries develop because successful treatment averts cardiovascular events that are costlier to treat.

“In the United States, in order for this to work, we would need a polypill that is both available widely but also affordable,” Dr. Kazi said. “It is going to require a visionary mover” to make that happen.

That could include philanthropic foundations. But it could also be a business opportunity for a company like Barcelona-based Ferrer, which provided the polypills for the SECURE trial.

The clinical and economic evidence in support of polypills has been compelling, Dr. Kazi said: “We have to get on with the business of implementing something that is effective and has the potential to greatly improve population health at scale.” 

The SECURE trial was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 program and coordinated by the Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC). Ferrer International provided the polypill that was used in the trial. CNIC receives royalties for sales of the polypill from Ferrer. Dr. Weiss is starting a biotech company unrelated to this area of research.

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

New research shows that “polypills” can prevent a combination of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths among patients who have recently experienced a myocardial infarction.

But results from the SECURE trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also raise questions.

How do the polypills reduce cardiovascular problems? And will they ever be available in the United States?

Questions about how they work center on a mystery in the trial data: the polypill – containing aspirin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and a statin – apparently conferred substantial cardiovascular protection while producing average blood pressure and lipid levels that were virtually the same as with usual care.

As to when polypills will be available, the answer may hinge on whether companies, government agencies, or philanthropic foundations come to see making and paying for such treatments – combinations of typically inexpensive generic drugs in a single pill for the sake of convenience and greater adherence – as financially worthwhile.
 

A matter of adherence?

In the SECURE trial, presented late August at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona, investigators randomly assigned 2,499 patients with an MI in the previous 6 months to receive usual care or a polypill.

Patients in the usual-care group typically received the same types of treatments included the polypill, only taken separately. Different versions of the polypill were available to allow for titration to tolerated doses of the component medications: aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 mg or 40 mg).

Researchers used the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale to gauge participants’ adherence to their medication regimen and found the polypill group was more adherent. Patients who received the polypill were more likely to have a high level of adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%), they reported. (The Morisky tool is the subject of some controversy because of aggressive licensing tactics of its creator.)

The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or urgent revascularization was significantly less likely in the polypill group during a median of 3 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .02).

“A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1,237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1,229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group,” the researchers report.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Valentin Fuster, MD, physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who led the study, said at ESC 2022.

Still, some clinicians were left scratching their heads by the lack of difference between treatment groups in average blood pressure and levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

In the group that received the polypill, average systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 24 months were 135.2 mmHg and 74.8 mmHg, respectively. In the group that received usual care, those values were 135.5 mmHg and 74.9 mmHg, respectively.

Likewise, “no substantial differences were found in LDL-cholesterol levels over time between the groups, with a mean value at 24 months of 67.7 mg/dL in the polypill group and 67.2 mg/dL in the usual-care group,” according to the researchers.

One explanation for the findings is that greater adherence led to beneficial effects that were not reflected in lipid and blood pressure measurements, the investigators said. Alternatively, the open-label trial design could have led to different health behaviors between groups, they suggested.

Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she loves the idea of polypills. But she wonders about the lack of difference in blood pressure and lipids in SECURE.

Dr. Gulati said she sees in practice how medication adherence and measurements of blood pressure and lipids typically go hand in hand.

When a patient initially responds to a medication, but then their LDL cholesterol goes up later, “my first question is, ‘Are you still taking your medication or how frequently are you taking it?’” Dr. Gulati said in an interview. “And I get all kinds of answers.”

“If you are more adherent, why wouldn’t your LDL actually be lower, and why wouldn’t your blood pressure be lower?” she asked.
 

Can the results be replicated?

Ethan J. Weiss, MD, a cardiologist and volunteer associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the SECURE results are “spectacular,” but the seeming disconnect with the biomarker measurements “doesn’t make for a clean story.”

“It just seems like if you are making an argument that this is a way to improve compliance ... you would see some evidence of improved compliance objectively” in the biomarker readings, Dr. Weiss said.

Trying to understand how the polypill worked requires more imagination. “Or it makes you just say, ‘Who cares what the mechanism is?’ These people did a lot better, full stop, and that’s all that matters,” he said.

Dr. Weiss said he expects some degree of replication of the results may be needed before practice changes.

To Steven E. Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Cleveland Clinic, the results “don’t make any sense.”

“If they got the same results on the biomarkers that the pill was designed to intervene upon, why are the [primary outcome] results different? It’s completely unexplained,” Dr. Nissen said.

In general, Dr. Nissen has not been an advocate of the polypill approach in higher-income countries.

“Medicine is all about customization of therapy,” he said. “Not everybody needs blood pressure lowering. Not everybody needs the same intensity of LDL reduction. We spend much of our lives seeing patients and treating their blood pressure, and if it doesn’t come down adequately, giving them a higher dose or adding another agent.”

Polypills might be reasonable for primary prevention in countries where people have less access to health care resources, he added. In such settings, a low-cost, simple treatment strategy might have benefit.

But Dr. Nissen still doesn’t see a role for a polypill in secondary prevention.

“I think we have to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look very carefully at the science and try to understand whether this, in fact, is sensible,” he said. “We may need another study to see if this can be replicated.”

For Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, the results of the SECURE trial offer an opportunity to rekindle conversations about the use of polypills for cardiovascular protection. These conversations and studies have been taking place for nearly two decades.

Dr. Kazi, associate director of the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, has used models to study the expected cost-effectiveness of polypills in various countries.

Although polypills can improve patients’ adherence to their prescribed medications, Dr. Kazi and colleagues have found that treatment gaps are “often at the physician level,” with many patients not prescribed all of the medications from which they could benefit.

Availability of polypills could help address those gaps. At the same time, many patients, even those with higher incomes, may have a strong preference for taking a single pill.

Dr. Kazi’s research also shows that a polypill approach may be more economically attractive as countries develop because successful treatment averts cardiovascular events that are costlier to treat.

“In the United States, in order for this to work, we would need a polypill that is both available widely but also affordable,” Dr. Kazi said. “It is going to require a visionary mover” to make that happen.

That could include philanthropic foundations. But it could also be a business opportunity for a company like Barcelona-based Ferrer, which provided the polypills for the SECURE trial.

The clinical and economic evidence in support of polypills has been compelling, Dr. Kazi said: “We have to get on with the business of implementing something that is effective and has the potential to greatly improve population health at scale.” 

The SECURE trial was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 program and coordinated by the Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC). Ferrer International provided the polypill that was used in the trial. CNIC receives royalties for sales of the polypill from Ferrer. Dr. Weiss is starting a biotech company unrelated to this area of research.

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

New research shows that “polypills” can prevent a combination of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths among patients who have recently experienced a myocardial infarction.

But results from the SECURE trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also raise questions.

How do the polypills reduce cardiovascular problems? And will they ever be available in the United States?

Questions about how they work center on a mystery in the trial data: the polypill – containing aspirin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and a statin – apparently conferred substantial cardiovascular protection while producing average blood pressure and lipid levels that were virtually the same as with usual care.

As to when polypills will be available, the answer may hinge on whether companies, government agencies, or philanthropic foundations come to see making and paying for such treatments – combinations of typically inexpensive generic drugs in a single pill for the sake of convenience and greater adherence – as financially worthwhile.
 

A matter of adherence?

In the SECURE trial, presented late August at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona, investigators randomly assigned 2,499 patients with an MI in the previous 6 months to receive usual care or a polypill.

Patients in the usual-care group typically received the same types of treatments included the polypill, only taken separately. Different versions of the polypill were available to allow for titration to tolerated doses of the component medications: aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 mg or 40 mg).

Researchers used the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale to gauge participants’ adherence to their medication regimen and found the polypill group was more adherent. Patients who received the polypill were more likely to have a high level of adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%), they reported. (The Morisky tool is the subject of some controversy because of aggressive licensing tactics of its creator.)

The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or urgent revascularization was significantly less likely in the polypill group during a median of 3 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .02).

“A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1,237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1,229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group,” the researchers report.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Valentin Fuster, MD, physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who led the study, said at ESC 2022.

Still, some clinicians were left scratching their heads by the lack of difference between treatment groups in average blood pressure and levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

In the group that received the polypill, average systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 24 months were 135.2 mmHg and 74.8 mmHg, respectively. In the group that received usual care, those values were 135.5 mmHg and 74.9 mmHg, respectively.

Likewise, “no substantial differences were found in LDL-cholesterol levels over time between the groups, with a mean value at 24 months of 67.7 mg/dL in the polypill group and 67.2 mg/dL in the usual-care group,” according to the researchers.

One explanation for the findings is that greater adherence led to beneficial effects that were not reflected in lipid and blood pressure measurements, the investigators said. Alternatively, the open-label trial design could have led to different health behaviors between groups, they suggested.

Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she loves the idea of polypills. But she wonders about the lack of difference in blood pressure and lipids in SECURE.

Dr. Gulati said she sees in practice how medication adherence and measurements of blood pressure and lipids typically go hand in hand.

When a patient initially responds to a medication, but then their LDL cholesterol goes up later, “my first question is, ‘Are you still taking your medication or how frequently are you taking it?’” Dr. Gulati said in an interview. “And I get all kinds of answers.”

“If you are more adherent, why wouldn’t your LDL actually be lower, and why wouldn’t your blood pressure be lower?” she asked.
 

Can the results be replicated?

Ethan J. Weiss, MD, a cardiologist and volunteer associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the SECURE results are “spectacular,” but the seeming disconnect with the biomarker measurements “doesn’t make for a clean story.”

“It just seems like if you are making an argument that this is a way to improve compliance ... you would see some evidence of improved compliance objectively” in the biomarker readings, Dr. Weiss said.

Trying to understand how the polypill worked requires more imagination. “Or it makes you just say, ‘Who cares what the mechanism is?’ These people did a lot better, full stop, and that’s all that matters,” he said.

Dr. Weiss said he expects some degree of replication of the results may be needed before practice changes.

To Steven E. Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Cleveland Clinic, the results “don’t make any sense.”

“If they got the same results on the biomarkers that the pill was designed to intervene upon, why are the [primary outcome] results different? It’s completely unexplained,” Dr. Nissen said.

In general, Dr. Nissen has not been an advocate of the polypill approach in higher-income countries.

“Medicine is all about customization of therapy,” he said. “Not everybody needs blood pressure lowering. Not everybody needs the same intensity of LDL reduction. We spend much of our lives seeing patients and treating their blood pressure, and if it doesn’t come down adequately, giving them a higher dose or adding another agent.”

Polypills might be reasonable for primary prevention in countries where people have less access to health care resources, he added. In such settings, a low-cost, simple treatment strategy might have benefit.

But Dr. Nissen still doesn’t see a role for a polypill in secondary prevention.

“I think we have to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look very carefully at the science and try to understand whether this, in fact, is sensible,” he said. “We may need another study to see if this can be replicated.”

For Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, the results of the SECURE trial offer an opportunity to rekindle conversations about the use of polypills for cardiovascular protection. These conversations and studies have been taking place for nearly two decades.

Dr. Kazi, associate director of the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, has used models to study the expected cost-effectiveness of polypills in various countries.

Although polypills can improve patients’ adherence to their prescribed medications, Dr. Kazi and colleagues have found that treatment gaps are “often at the physician level,” with many patients not prescribed all of the medications from which they could benefit.

Availability of polypills could help address those gaps. At the same time, many patients, even those with higher incomes, may have a strong preference for taking a single pill.

Dr. Kazi’s research also shows that a polypill approach may be more economically attractive as countries develop because successful treatment averts cardiovascular events that are costlier to treat.

“In the United States, in order for this to work, we would need a polypill that is both available widely but also affordable,” Dr. Kazi said. “It is going to require a visionary mover” to make that happen.

That could include philanthropic foundations. But it could also be a business opportunity for a company like Barcelona-based Ferrer, which provided the polypills for the SECURE trial.

The clinical and economic evidence in support of polypills has been compelling, Dr. Kazi said: “We have to get on with the business of implementing something that is effective and has the potential to greatly improve population health at scale.” 

The SECURE trial was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 program and coordinated by the Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC). Ferrer International provided the polypill that was used in the trial. CNIC receives royalties for sales of the polypill from Ferrer. Dr. Weiss is starting a biotech company unrelated to this area of research.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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