User login
No invasive strategy benefit at 5 years in ISCHEMIA-CKD extension study
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.
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.
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.
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.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2022
ACC/AHA issue chest pain data standards update to 2021 guideline
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.
Artificial sweeteners linked to higher CV event risk
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.
FROM BMJ
Muscling through the data
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, 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, 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, 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.
Low physical function tied to cardiac events in older adults
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.
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.
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.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
MR and PET perform similarly for assessing CAD
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AT ESC CONGRESS 2022
Majority of muscle symptoms with statins not caused by treatment
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2022
Evolocumab benefits accrue with longer follow-up: FOURIER OLE
Long-term lipid lowering with evolocumab (Repatha) further reduces cardiovascular events, including CV death, without a safety signal, according to results from the FOURIER open-label extension (OLE) study.
In the parent FOURIER trial, treatment with the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor over a median of 2.2 years reduced the primary efficacy endpoint by 15% but showed no CV mortality signal, compared with placebo, in patients with atherosclerotic disease on background statin therapy.
Now with follow-up out to 8.4 years – the longest to date in any PCSK9 study – cardiovascular mortality was cut by 23% in patients who remained on evolocumab, compared with those originally assigned to placebo (3.32% vs. 4.45%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99).
The Kaplan-Meier curves during FOURIER were “essentially superimposed and it was not until the open-label extension period had begun with longer-term follow up that the benefit in terms of cardiovascular mortality reduction became apparent,” said principal investigator Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The results were reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in Circulation.
Pivotal statin trials have median follow-up times of 4-5 years and demonstrated both a lag effect, meaning clinical benefit grew over time, and a legacy effect, where clinical benefit persisted in extended follow-up after the parent study, Dr. O’Donoghue observed.
With shorter follow-up in the parent FOURIER trial, there was evidence of a lag effect with the risk reduction in CV death, MI, and stroke increasing from 16% in the first year to 25% over time with evolocumab.
FOURIER-OLE enrolled 6,635 patients (3355 randomly assigned to evolocumab and 3280 to placebo), who completed the parent study and self-injected evolocumab subcutaneously with the choice of 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly. Study visits were at week 12 and then every 24 weeks. Median follow-up was 5 years.
Their mean age was 62 years, three-fourths were men, a third had diabetes. Three-fourths were on a high-intensity statin at the time of enrollment in FOURIER, and median LDL cholesterol at randomization was 91 mg/dL (2.4 mmol/L).
At week 12, the median LDL cholesterol was 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L), and this was sustained throughout follow-up, Dr. O’Donoghue reported. Most patients achieved very low LDL cholesterol levels, with 63.2% achieving levels less than 40 mg/dL (1.04 mmol/L) and 26.6% less than 20 mg/dL (0.52 mmol/L).
Patients randomly assigned in the parent trial to evolocumab versus placebo had a 15% lower risk of the primary outcome of CV death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization (15.4% vs. 17.5%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).
Their risk of CV death, MI, or stroke was 20% lower (9.7% vs. 11.9%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93), and, as noted previously, 23% lower for CV death.
When major adverse cardiovascular events data were parsed out by year, the largest LDL cholesterol reduction was in years 1 and 2 of the parent study (delta, 62 mg/dL between treatment arms), “highlighting that lag of benefit that continued to accrue with time,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.
“There was then carryover into the extension period, such that there was legacy effect from the LDL [cholesterol] delta that was seen during the parent study,” she said. “This benefit was most apparent early on during open-label extension and then, as one might expect when all patients were being treated with the same therapy, it began to attenuate somewhat with time.”
Although early studies raised concerns that very low LDL cholesterol may be associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke and neurocognitive effects, the frequency of adverse events did not increase over time with evolocumab exposure.
Annualized incidence rates for patients initially randomized to evolocumab did not exceed those for placebo-treated patients for any of the following events of interest: serious safety events (10% vs. 13%), hemorrhagic stroke (0.04% vs. 0.05%), new-onset diabetes (1.2% vs. 2.3%), muscle-related events (1.2% vs. 1.9%), injection-site reactions (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and drug-related allergic reactions (0.6% vs. 1.1%).
“Long-term use of evolocumab with a median follow-up of more than 7 years appears both safe and well tolerated,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.
Taken together with the continued accrual of cardiovascular benefit, including CV mortality, “these findings argue for early initiation of a marked and sustained LDL cholesterol reduction to maximize benefit,” she concluded.
Translating the benefits
Ulrich Laufs, MD, Leipzig (Germany) University Hospital, Germany, and invited commentator for the session, said the trial addresses two key issues: the long-term safety of low LDL cholesterol lowering and the long-term safety of inhibiting PCSK9, which is highly expressed not only in the liver but also in the brain, small intestine, and kidneys. Indeed, an LDL cholesterol level below 30 mg/dL is lower than the ESC treatment recommendation for very-high-risk patients and is, in fact, lower than most assays are reliable to interpret.
“So it is very important that we have these very clear data showing us that there were no adverse events, also including cataracts and hemorrhagic stroke, and these were on the level of placebo and did not increase over time,” he said.
The question of efficacy is triggered by observations of another PCSK9, the humanized monoclonal antibody bococizumab, which was associated in the SPIRE trial with an increase in LDL cholesterol over time because of neutralizing antibodies. Reassuringly, there was “completely sustained LDL [cholesterol] reduction” with no neutralizing antibodies with the fully human antibody evolocumab in FOURIER-OLE and in recent data from the OSLER-1 study, Dr. Laufs observed.
Acknowledging the potential for selection bias with an OLE program, Dr. Laufs said there are two important open questions: “Can the safety data observed for extracellular PCSK9 inhibition using an antibody be transferred to other mechanisms of PCSK9 inhibition? And obviously, from the perspective of patient care, how can we implement these important data into patient care and improve access to PCSK9 inhibitors?”
With regard to the latter point, he said physicians should be cautious in using the term “plaque regression,” opting instead for prevention and stabilization of atherosclerosis, and when using the term “legacy,” which may be misinterpreted by patients to imply there was cessation of therapy.
“From my perspective, [what] the open-label extension really shows is that earlier treatment is better,” Dr. Laufs said. “This should be our message.”
In a press conference prior to the presentation, ESC commentator Johann Bauersachs, MD, Hannover (Germany) Medical School, said “this is extremely important data because it confirms that it’s safe, and the criticism of the FOURIER study that mortality, cardiovascular mortality, was not reduced is now also reduced.”
Dr. Bauersachs said it would have been unethical to wait 7 years for a placebo-controlled trial and questioned whether data are available and suggestive of a legacy effect among patients who did not participate in the open-label extension.
Dr. O’Donoghue said unfortunately those data aren’t available but that Kaplan-Meier curves for the primary endpoint in the parent trial continued to diverge over time and that there was somewhat of a lag in terms of that divergence. “So, a median follow-up of 2 years may have been insufficient, especially for the emerging cardiovascular mortality that took longer to appear.”
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Intarcia, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Dr. Laufs reported receiving honoraria/reimbursement for lecture, study participation, and scientific cooperation with Saarland or Leipzig University, as well as relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and device makers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term lipid lowering with evolocumab (Repatha) further reduces cardiovascular events, including CV death, without a safety signal, according to results from the FOURIER open-label extension (OLE) study.
In the parent FOURIER trial, treatment with the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor over a median of 2.2 years reduced the primary efficacy endpoint by 15% but showed no CV mortality signal, compared with placebo, in patients with atherosclerotic disease on background statin therapy.
Now with follow-up out to 8.4 years – the longest to date in any PCSK9 study – cardiovascular mortality was cut by 23% in patients who remained on evolocumab, compared with those originally assigned to placebo (3.32% vs. 4.45%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99).
The Kaplan-Meier curves during FOURIER were “essentially superimposed and it was not until the open-label extension period had begun with longer-term follow up that the benefit in terms of cardiovascular mortality reduction became apparent,” said principal investigator Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The results were reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in Circulation.
Pivotal statin trials have median follow-up times of 4-5 years and demonstrated both a lag effect, meaning clinical benefit grew over time, and a legacy effect, where clinical benefit persisted in extended follow-up after the parent study, Dr. O’Donoghue observed.
With shorter follow-up in the parent FOURIER trial, there was evidence of a lag effect with the risk reduction in CV death, MI, and stroke increasing from 16% in the first year to 25% over time with evolocumab.
FOURIER-OLE enrolled 6,635 patients (3355 randomly assigned to evolocumab and 3280 to placebo), who completed the parent study and self-injected evolocumab subcutaneously with the choice of 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly. Study visits were at week 12 and then every 24 weeks. Median follow-up was 5 years.
Their mean age was 62 years, three-fourths were men, a third had diabetes. Three-fourths were on a high-intensity statin at the time of enrollment in FOURIER, and median LDL cholesterol at randomization was 91 mg/dL (2.4 mmol/L).
At week 12, the median LDL cholesterol was 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L), and this was sustained throughout follow-up, Dr. O’Donoghue reported. Most patients achieved very low LDL cholesterol levels, with 63.2% achieving levels less than 40 mg/dL (1.04 mmol/L) and 26.6% less than 20 mg/dL (0.52 mmol/L).
Patients randomly assigned in the parent trial to evolocumab versus placebo had a 15% lower risk of the primary outcome of CV death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization (15.4% vs. 17.5%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).
Their risk of CV death, MI, or stroke was 20% lower (9.7% vs. 11.9%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93), and, as noted previously, 23% lower for CV death.
When major adverse cardiovascular events data were parsed out by year, the largest LDL cholesterol reduction was in years 1 and 2 of the parent study (delta, 62 mg/dL between treatment arms), “highlighting that lag of benefit that continued to accrue with time,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.
“There was then carryover into the extension period, such that there was legacy effect from the LDL [cholesterol] delta that was seen during the parent study,” she said. “This benefit was most apparent early on during open-label extension and then, as one might expect when all patients were being treated with the same therapy, it began to attenuate somewhat with time.”
Although early studies raised concerns that very low LDL cholesterol may be associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke and neurocognitive effects, the frequency of adverse events did not increase over time with evolocumab exposure.
Annualized incidence rates for patients initially randomized to evolocumab did not exceed those for placebo-treated patients for any of the following events of interest: serious safety events (10% vs. 13%), hemorrhagic stroke (0.04% vs. 0.05%), new-onset diabetes (1.2% vs. 2.3%), muscle-related events (1.2% vs. 1.9%), injection-site reactions (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and drug-related allergic reactions (0.6% vs. 1.1%).
“Long-term use of evolocumab with a median follow-up of more than 7 years appears both safe and well tolerated,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.
Taken together with the continued accrual of cardiovascular benefit, including CV mortality, “these findings argue for early initiation of a marked and sustained LDL cholesterol reduction to maximize benefit,” she concluded.
Translating the benefits
Ulrich Laufs, MD, Leipzig (Germany) University Hospital, Germany, and invited commentator for the session, said the trial addresses two key issues: the long-term safety of low LDL cholesterol lowering and the long-term safety of inhibiting PCSK9, which is highly expressed not only in the liver but also in the brain, small intestine, and kidneys. Indeed, an LDL cholesterol level below 30 mg/dL is lower than the ESC treatment recommendation for very-high-risk patients and is, in fact, lower than most assays are reliable to interpret.
“So it is very important that we have these very clear data showing us that there were no adverse events, also including cataracts and hemorrhagic stroke, and these were on the level of placebo and did not increase over time,” he said.
The question of efficacy is triggered by observations of another PCSK9, the humanized monoclonal antibody bococizumab, which was associated in the SPIRE trial with an increase in LDL cholesterol over time because of neutralizing antibodies. Reassuringly, there was “completely sustained LDL [cholesterol] reduction” with no neutralizing antibodies with the fully human antibody evolocumab in FOURIER-OLE and in recent data from the OSLER-1 study, Dr. Laufs observed.
Acknowledging the potential for selection bias with an OLE program, Dr. Laufs said there are two important open questions: “Can the safety data observed for extracellular PCSK9 inhibition using an antibody be transferred to other mechanisms of PCSK9 inhibition? And obviously, from the perspective of patient care, how can we implement these important data into patient care and improve access to PCSK9 inhibitors?”
With regard to the latter point, he said physicians should be cautious in using the term “plaque regression,” opting instead for prevention and stabilization of atherosclerosis, and when using the term “legacy,” which may be misinterpreted by patients to imply there was cessation of therapy.
“From my perspective, [what] the open-label extension really shows is that earlier treatment is better,” Dr. Laufs said. “This should be our message.”
In a press conference prior to the presentation, ESC commentator Johann Bauersachs, MD, Hannover (Germany) Medical School, said “this is extremely important data because it confirms that it’s safe, and the criticism of the FOURIER study that mortality, cardiovascular mortality, was not reduced is now also reduced.”
Dr. Bauersachs said it would have been unethical to wait 7 years for a placebo-controlled trial and questioned whether data are available and suggestive of a legacy effect among patients who did not participate in the open-label extension.
Dr. O’Donoghue said unfortunately those data aren’t available but that Kaplan-Meier curves for the primary endpoint in the parent trial continued to diverge over time and that there was somewhat of a lag in terms of that divergence. “So, a median follow-up of 2 years may have been insufficient, especially for the emerging cardiovascular mortality that took longer to appear.”
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Intarcia, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Dr. Laufs reported receiving honoraria/reimbursement for lecture, study participation, and scientific cooperation with Saarland or Leipzig University, as well as relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and device makers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term lipid lowering with evolocumab (Repatha) further reduces cardiovascular events, including CV death, without a safety signal, according to results from the FOURIER open-label extension (OLE) study.
In the parent FOURIER trial, treatment with the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor over a median of 2.2 years reduced the primary efficacy endpoint by 15% but showed no CV mortality signal, compared with placebo, in patients with atherosclerotic disease on background statin therapy.
Now with follow-up out to 8.4 years – the longest to date in any PCSK9 study – cardiovascular mortality was cut by 23% in patients who remained on evolocumab, compared with those originally assigned to placebo (3.32% vs. 4.45%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99).
The Kaplan-Meier curves during FOURIER were “essentially superimposed and it was not until the open-label extension period had begun with longer-term follow up that the benefit in terms of cardiovascular mortality reduction became apparent,” said principal investigator Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The results were reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in Circulation.
Pivotal statin trials have median follow-up times of 4-5 years and demonstrated both a lag effect, meaning clinical benefit grew over time, and a legacy effect, where clinical benefit persisted in extended follow-up after the parent study, Dr. O’Donoghue observed.
With shorter follow-up in the parent FOURIER trial, there was evidence of a lag effect with the risk reduction in CV death, MI, and stroke increasing from 16% in the first year to 25% over time with evolocumab.
FOURIER-OLE enrolled 6,635 patients (3355 randomly assigned to evolocumab and 3280 to placebo), who completed the parent study and self-injected evolocumab subcutaneously with the choice of 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly. Study visits were at week 12 and then every 24 weeks. Median follow-up was 5 years.
Their mean age was 62 years, three-fourths were men, a third had diabetes. Three-fourths were on a high-intensity statin at the time of enrollment in FOURIER, and median LDL cholesterol at randomization was 91 mg/dL (2.4 mmol/L).
At week 12, the median LDL cholesterol was 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L), and this was sustained throughout follow-up, Dr. O’Donoghue reported. Most patients achieved very low LDL cholesterol levels, with 63.2% achieving levels less than 40 mg/dL (1.04 mmol/L) and 26.6% less than 20 mg/dL (0.52 mmol/L).
Patients randomly assigned in the parent trial to evolocumab versus placebo had a 15% lower risk of the primary outcome of CV death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization (15.4% vs. 17.5%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).
Their risk of CV death, MI, or stroke was 20% lower (9.7% vs. 11.9%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93), and, as noted previously, 23% lower for CV death.
When major adverse cardiovascular events data were parsed out by year, the largest LDL cholesterol reduction was in years 1 and 2 of the parent study (delta, 62 mg/dL between treatment arms), “highlighting that lag of benefit that continued to accrue with time,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.
“There was then carryover into the extension period, such that there was legacy effect from the LDL [cholesterol] delta that was seen during the parent study,” she said. “This benefit was most apparent early on during open-label extension and then, as one might expect when all patients were being treated with the same therapy, it began to attenuate somewhat with time.”
Although early studies raised concerns that very low LDL cholesterol may be associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke and neurocognitive effects, the frequency of adverse events did not increase over time with evolocumab exposure.
Annualized incidence rates for patients initially randomized to evolocumab did not exceed those for placebo-treated patients for any of the following events of interest: serious safety events (10% vs. 13%), hemorrhagic stroke (0.04% vs. 0.05%), new-onset diabetes (1.2% vs. 2.3%), muscle-related events (1.2% vs. 1.9%), injection-site reactions (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and drug-related allergic reactions (0.6% vs. 1.1%).
“Long-term use of evolocumab with a median follow-up of more than 7 years appears both safe and well tolerated,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.
Taken together with the continued accrual of cardiovascular benefit, including CV mortality, “these findings argue for early initiation of a marked and sustained LDL cholesterol reduction to maximize benefit,” she concluded.
Translating the benefits
Ulrich Laufs, MD, Leipzig (Germany) University Hospital, Germany, and invited commentator for the session, said the trial addresses two key issues: the long-term safety of low LDL cholesterol lowering and the long-term safety of inhibiting PCSK9, which is highly expressed not only in the liver but also in the brain, small intestine, and kidneys. Indeed, an LDL cholesterol level below 30 mg/dL is lower than the ESC treatment recommendation for very-high-risk patients and is, in fact, lower than most assays are reliable to interpret.
“So it is very important that we have these very clear data showing us that there were no adverse events, also including cataracts and hemorrhagic stroke, and these were on the level of placebo and did not increase over time,” he said.
The question of efficacy is triggered by observations of another PCSK9, the humanized monoclonal antibody bococizumab, which was associated in the SPIRE trial with an increase in LDL cholesterol over time because of neutralizing antibodies. Reassuringly, there was “completely sustained LDL [cholesterol] reduction” with no neutralizing antibodies with the fully human antibody evolocumab in FOURIER-OLE and in recent data from the OSLER-1 study, Dr. Laufs observed.
Acknowledging the potential for selection bias with an OLE program, Dr. Laufs said there are two important open questions: “Can the safety data observed for extracellular PCSK9 inhibition using an antibody be transferred to other mechanisms of PCSK9 inhibition? And obviously, from the perspective of patient care, how can we implement these important data into patient care and improve access to PCSK9 inhibitors?”
With regard to the latter point, he said physicians should be cautious in using the term “plaque regression,” opting instead for prevention and stabilization of atherosclerosis, and when using the term “legacy,” which may be misinterpreted by patients to imply there was cessation of therapy.
“From my perspective, [what] the open-label extension really shows is that earlier treatment is better,” Dr. Laufs said. “This should be our message.”
In a press conference prior to the presentation, ESC commentator Johann Bauersachs, MD, Hannover (Germany) Medical School, said “this is extremely important data because it confirms that it’s safe, and the criticism of the FOURIER study that mortality, cardiovascular mortality, was not reduced is now also reduced.”
Dr. Bauersachs said it would have been unethical to wait 7 years for a placebo-controlled trial and questioned whether data are available and suggestive of a legacy effect among patients who did not participate in the open-label extension.
Dr. O’Donoghue said unfortunately those data aren’t available but that Kaplan-Meier curves for the primary endpoint in the parent trial continued to diverge over time and that there was somewhat of a lag in terms of that divergence. “So, a median follow-up of 2 years may have been insufficient, especially for the emerging cardiovascular mortality that took longer to appear.”
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Intarcia, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Dr. Laufs reported receiving honoraria/reimbursement for lecture, study participation, and scientific cooperation with Saarland or Leipzig University, as well as relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and device makers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2022
ACC fills gaps on guidance for nonstatin therapies for LDL-C lowering
To address current gaps in expert guidance on newer nonstatin agents, the American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies in LDL cholesterol lowering for risk reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Since the publication of the most recent AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines in 2018, a number of newer nonstatin medications have become available for management of lipid-associated risk, including bempedoic acid, inclisiran, evinacumab, and icosapent ethyl.
These medications were not addressed in the 2018 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol.
The 53-page document – 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Nonstatin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk – was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The new expert consensus document provides guidance for clinicians until the next formal guidelines are produced, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the writing committee, told this news organization.
The writing group focused on three key areas regarding the use of nonstatin therapies where recent scientific evidence is still under review and clinical trials are still underway:
- In what patient populations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
- In what situations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
- If newer nonstatin therapies are to be added, which therapies should be considered and in what order to maximize patient benefit and preference?
The document provides algorithms that endorse the four evidence-based patient groups identified in the 2018 guidelines and assumes that the patient is currently taking or has attempted to take a statin, given that that is the most effective initial therapy, the writing group says.
“The algorithms have been streamlined for ease of use by clinicians to help them identify who may need adjunctive nonstatin medications, to provide thresholds for consideration of those medications, and to provide a prioritization of those medications based on the strength of available evidence of efficacy,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.
“We hope that these pathways will assist the decision-making process for clinicians and patients,” he added.
He also noted that statins remain the “most important first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk, because of their efficacy, safety, and low cost. However, for some patients, there are now options if statins do not fully achieve the goals for reducing ASCVD risk or if statins are not tolerated at effective doses.”
“The new expert consensus document highlights that higher-risk patients should be considered more often for adjunctive therapy and provides user-friendly decision pathways to assist in considering the reasonable choices available under different clinical scenarios,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
The document has been endorsed by the National Lipid Association.
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
To address current gaps in expert guidance on newer nonstatin agents, the American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies in LDL cholesterol lowering for risk reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Since the publication of the most recent AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines in 2018, a number of newer nonstatin medications have become available for management of lipid-associated risk, including bempedoic acid, inclisiran, evinacumab, and icosapent ethyl.
These medications were not addressed in the 2018 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol.
The 53-page document – 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Nonstatin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk – was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The new expert consensus document provides guidance for clinicians until the next formal guidelines are produced, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the writing committee, told this news organization.
The writing group focused on three key areas regarding the use of nonstatin therapies where recent scientific evidence is still under review and clinical trials are still underway:
- In what patient populations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
- In what situations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
- If newer nonstatin therapies are to be added, which therapies should be considered and in what order to maximize patient benefit and preference?
The document provides algorithms that endorse the four evidence-based patient groups identified in the 2018 guidelines and assumes that the patient is currently taking or has attempted to take a statin, given that that is the most effective initial therapy, the writing group says.
“The algorithms have been streamlined for ease of use by clinicians to help them identify who may need adjunctive nonstatin medications, to provide thresholds for consideration of those medications, and to provide a prioritization of those medications based on the strength of available evidence of efficacy,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.
“We hope that these pathways will assist the decision-making process for clinicians and patients,” he added.
He also noted that statins remain the “most important first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk, because of their efficacy, safety, and low cost. However, for some patients, there are now options if statins do not fully achieve the goals for reducing ASCVD risk or if statins are not tolerated at effective doses.”
“The new expert consensus document highlights that higher-risk patients should be considered more often for adjunctive therapy and provides user-friendly decision pathways to assist in considering the reasonable choices available under different clinical scenarios,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
The document has been endorsed by the National Lipid Association.
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
To address current gaps in expert guidance on newer nonstatin agents, the American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies in LDL cholesterol lowering for risk reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Since the publication of the most recent AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines in 2018, a number of newer nonstatin medications have become available for management of lipid-associated risk, including bempedoic acid, inclisiran, evinacumab, and icosapent ethyl.
These medications were not addressed in the 2018 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol.
The 53-page document – 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Nonstatin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk – was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The new expert consensus document provides guidance for clinicians until the next formal guidelines are produced, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the writing committee, told this news organization.
The writing group focused on three key areas regarding the use of nonstatin therapies where recent scientific evidence is still under review and clinical trials are still underway:
- In what patient populations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
- In what situations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
- If newer nonstatin therapies are to be added, which therapies should be considered and in what order to maximize patient benefit and preference?
The document provides algorithms that endorse the four evidence-based patient groups identified in the 2018 guidelines and assumes that the patient is currently taking or has attempted to take a statin, given that that is the most effective initial therapy, the writing group says.
“The algorithms have been streamlined for ease of use by clinicians to help them identify who may need adjunctive nonstatin medications, to provide thresholds for consideration of those medications, and to provide a prioritization of those medications based on the strength of available evidence of efficacy,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.
“We hope that these pathways will assist the decision-making process for clinicians and patients,” he added.
He also noted that statins remain the “most important first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk, because of their efficacy, safety, and low cost. However, for some patients, there are now options if statins do not fully achieve the goals for reducing ASCVD risk or if statins are not tolerated at effective doses.”
“The new expert consensus document highlights that higher-risk patients should be considered more often for adjunctive therapy and provides user-friendly decision pathways to assist in considering the reasonable choices available under different clinical scenarios,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
The document has been endorsed by the National Lipid Association.
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No benefit of routine stress test POST-PCI in high-risk patients
New randomized trial results show no benefit in clinical outcomes from active surveillance using functional testing over usual care among high-risk patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
At 2 years, there was no difference in a composite outcome of death from any cause, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina between patients who had routine functional testing at 1 year and patients receiving standard care in the POST-PCI trial.
“Our trial does not support active surveillance with routine functional testing for follow-up strategy in high-risk patients who undergo PCI,” first author Duk-Woo Park, MD, division of cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
The researchers said their results should be interpreted in the context of previous findings from the ISCHEMIA trial that showed no difference in death or ischemic events with an initial invasive versus an initial conservative approach in patients with stable coronary artery disease and moderate to severe ischemia on stress testing.
“Both the ISCHEMIA and POST-PCI trials show the benefits of a ‘less is more’ concept (i.e., if more invasive strategies or testing are performed less frequently, it will result in better patient outcomes),” the authors wrote. Although characteristics of the patients in these trials “were quite different, a more invasive therapeutic approach (in the ISCHEMIA trial) as well as a more aggressive follow-up approach (in the POST-PCI trial) did not provide an additional treatment effect beyond a conservative strategy on the basis of guideline-directed medical therapy.”
Results were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘Compelling new evidence’
In an editorial accompanying the publication, Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital, New York, also agreed that this new result “builds on the findings” from the ISCHEMIA trial. “Collectively, these trials highlight the lack of benefit of routine stress testing in asymptomatic patients.”
Dr. Tamis-Holland pointed out that many of the deaths in this trial occurred before the 1-year stress test, possibly related to stent thrombosis, and therefore would not have been prevented by routine testing at 1 year. And overall, event rates were “quite low, and most likely reflect adherence to guideline recommendations” in the trial. For example, 99% of patients were receiving statins, and 74% of the procedures used intravascular imaging for the PCI procedures, “a much greater proportion of use than most centers in the United States,” she noted.
“The POST-PCI trial provides compelling new evidence for a future class III recommendation for routine surveillance testing after PCI,” Dr. Tamis-Holland concluded “Until then, we must refrain from prescribing surveillance stress testing to our patients after PCI, in the absence of other clinical signs or symptoms suggestive of stent failure.”
Commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, said that for decades it’s been thought that patients who had high-risk PCI needed to be followed more closely for potential future events.
“And it actually turned out there was no difference in outcomes between the groups,” he said in an interview.
“So, I think it’s a good study – well conducted, good numbers – that answers the question that routine functional stress testing, even for high-risk PCI patients, is not effective or cost effective or beneficial on a yearly basis,” he said. “I think it will help frame care that patients will just be followed with best medical therapy and then if they have recurrence of symptoms they would be considered for further evaluation, either with stress testing or angiography.”
High-risk characteristics
Current guidelines do not advocate the use of routine stress testing after revascularization, the authors wrote in their paper. “However, surveillance with the use of imaging-based stress testing may be considered in high-risk patients at 6 months after a revascularization procedure (class IIb recommendation), and routine imaging-based stress testing may be considered at 1 year after PCI and more than 5 years after CABG [coronary artery bypass graft] (class IIb recommendation).”
But in real-world clinical practice, Dr. Park said, “follow-up strategy for patients who underwent PCI or CABG is still undetermined.” Particularly, “it could be more problematic in high-risk PCI patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics. Thus, we performed this POST-PCI trial comparing routine stress testing follow-up strategy versus standard-care follow-up strategy in high-risk PCI patients.”
The researchers randomly assigned 1,706 patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics who had undergone PCI to a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing, including nuclear stress testing, exercise electrocardiography, or stress echocardiography at 1 year, or to standard care alone.
High-risk anatomical features included left main or bifurcation disease; restenotic or long, diffuse lesions; or bypass graft disease. High-risk clinical characteristics included diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, or enzyme-positive acute coronary syndrome.
Mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 21.0% had left main disease, 43.5% had bifurcation disease, 69.8% had multivessel disease, 70.1% had diffuse long lesions, 38.7% had diabetes, and 96.4% had been treated with drug-eluting stents.
At 2 years, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 46 of 849 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 5.5%) in the functional-testing group and in 51 of 857 (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 6.0%) in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.35; P = .62). There were no between-group differences in the components of the primary outcome.
Secondary endpoints included invasive coronary angiography or repeat revascularization. At 2 years, 12.3% of the patients in the functional-testing group and 9.3% in the standard-care group had undergone invasive coronary angiography (difference, 2.99 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.01 to 5.99 percentage points), and 8.1% and 5.8% of patients, respectively, had a repeat revascularization procedure (difference, 2.23 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.22 to 4.68 percentage points).
Positive results on stress tests were more common with nuclear imaging than with exercise ECG or stress echocardiography, the authors noted. Subsequent coronary angiography and repeat revascularization were more common in patients with positive results on nuclear stress imaging and exercise ECG than in those with discordant results between nuclear imaging and exercise ECG.
POST-PCI was funded by the CardioVascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Park reported grants from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Tamis-Holland reported “other” funding from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New randomized trial results show no benefit in clinical outcomes from active surveillance using functional testing over usual care among high-risk patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
At 2 years, there was no difference in a composite outcome of death from any cause, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina between patients who had routine functional testing at 1 year and patients receiving standard care in the POST-PCI trial.
“Our trial does not support active surveillance with routine functional testing for follow-up strategy in high-risk patients who undergo PCI,” first author Duk-Woo Park, MD, division of cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
The researchers said their results should be interpreted in the context of previous findings from the ISCHEMIA trial that showed no difference in death or ischemic events with an initial invasive versus an initial conservative approach in patients with stable coronary artery disease and moderate to severe ischemia on stress testing.
“Both the ISCHEMIA and POST-PCI trials show the benefits of a ‘less is more’ concept (i.e., if more invasive strategies or testing are performed less frequently, it will result in better patient outcomes),” the authors wrote. Although characteristics of the patients in these trials “were quite different, a more invasive therapeutic approach (in the ISCHEMIA trial) as well as a more aggressive follow-up approach (in the POST-PCI trial) did not provide an additional treatment effect beyond a conservative strategy on the basis of guideline-directed medical therapy.”
Results were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘Compelling new evidence’
In an editorial accompanying the publication, Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital, New York, also agreed that this new result “builds on the findings” from the ISCHEMIA trial. “Collectively, these trials highlight the lack of benefit of routine stress testing in asymptomatic patients.”
Dr. Tamis-Holland pointed out that many of the deaths in this trial occurred before the 1-year stress test, possibly related to stent thrombosis, and therefore would not have been prevented by routine testing at 1 year. And overall, event rates were “quite low, and most likely reflect adherence to guideline recommendations” in the trial. For example, 99% of patients were receiving statins, and 74% of the procedures used intravascular imaging for the PCI procedures, “a much greater proportion of use than most centers in the United States,” she noted.
“The POST-PCI trial provides compelling new evidence for a future class III recommendation for routine surveillance testing after PCI,” Dr. Tamis-Holland concluded “Until then, we must refrain from prescribing surveillance stress testing to our patients after PCI, in the absence of other clinical signs or symptoms suggestive of stent failure.”
Commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, said that for decades it’s been thought that patients who had high-risk PCI needed to be followed more closely for potential future events.
“And it actually turned out there was no difference in outcomes between the groups,” he said in an interview.
“So, I think it’s a good study – well conducted, good numbers – that answers the question that routine functional stress testing, even for high-risk PCI patients, is not effective or cost effective or beneficial on a yearly basis,” he said. “I think it will help frame care that patients will just be followed with best medical therapy and then if they have recurrence of symptoms they would be considered for further evaluation, either with stress testing or angiography.”
High-risk characteristics
Current guidelines do not advocate the use of routine stress testing after revascularization, the authors wrote in their paper. “However, surveillance with the use of imaging-based stress testing may be considered in high-risk patients at 6 months after a revascularization procedure (class IIb recommendation), and routine imaging-based stress testing may be considered at 1 year after PCI and more than 5 years after CABG [coronary artery bypass graft] (class IIb recommendation).”
But in real-world clinical practice, Dr. Park said, “follow-up strategy for patients who underwent PCI or CABG is still undetermined.” Particularly, “it could be more problematic in high-risk PCI patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics. Thus, we performed this POST-PCI trial comparing routine stress testing follow-up strategy versus standard-care follow-up strategy in high-risk PCI patients.”
The researchers randomly assigned 1,706 patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics who had undergone PCI to a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing, including nuclear stress testing, exercise electrocardiography, or stress echocardiography at 1 year, or to standard care alone.
High-risk anatomical features included left main or bifurcation disease; restenotic or long, diffuse lesions; or bypass graft disease. High-risk clinical characteristics included diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, or enzyme-positive acute coronary syndrome.
Mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 21.0% had left main disease, 43.5% had bifurcation disease, 69.8% had multivessel disease, 70.1% had diffuse long lesions, 38.7% had diabetes, and 96.4% had been treated with drug-eluting stents.
At 2 years, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 46 of 849 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 5.5%) in the functional-testing group and in 51 of 857 (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 6.0%) in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.35; P = .62). There were no between-group differences in the components of the primary outcome.
Secondary endpoints included invasive coronary angiography or repeat revascularization. At 2 years, 12.3% of the patients in the functional-testing group and 9.3% in the standard-care group had undergone invasive coronary angiography (difference, 2.99 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.01 to 5.99 percentage points), and 8.1% and 5.8% of patients, respectively, had a repeat revascularization procedure (difference, 2.23 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.22 to 4.68 percentage points).
Positive results on stress tests were more common with nuclear imaging than with exercise ECG or stress echocardiography, the authors noted. Subsequent coronary angiography and repeat revascularization were more common in patients with positive results on nuclear stress imaging and exercise ECG than in those with discordant results between nuclear imaging and exercise ECG.
POST-PCI was funded by the CardioVascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Park reported grants from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Tamis-Holland reported “other” funding from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New randomized trial results show no benefit in clinical outcomes from active surveillance using functional testing over usual care among high-risk patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
At 2 years, there was no difference in a composite outcome of death from any cause, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina between patients who had routine functional testing at 1 year and patients receiving standard care in the POST-PCI trial.
“Our trial does not support active surveillance with routine functional testing for follow-up strategy in high-risk patients who undergo PCI,” first author Duk-Woo Park, MD, division of cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
The researchers said their results should be interpreted in the context of previous findings from the ISCHEMIA trial that showed no difference in death or ischemic events with an initial invasive versus an initial conservative approach in patients with stable coronary artery disease and moderate to severe ischemia on stress testing.
“Both the ISCHEMIA and POST-PCI trials show the benefits of a ‘less is more’ concept (i.e., if more invasive strategies or testing are performed less frequently, it will result in better patient outcomes),” the authors wrote. Although characteristics of the patients in these trials “were quite different, a more invasive therapeutic approach (in the ISCHEMIA trial) as well as a more aggressive follow-up approach (in the POST-PCI trial) did not provide an additional treatment effect beyond a conservative strategy on the basis of guideline-directed medical therapy.”
Results were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘Compelling new evidence’
In an editorial accompanying the publication, Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital, New York, also agreed that this new result “builds on the findings” from the ISCHEMIA trial. “Collectively, these trials highlight the lack of benefit of routine stress testing in asymptomatic patients.”
Dr. Tamis-Holland pointed out that many of the deaths in this trial occurred before the 1-year stress test, possibly related to stent thrombosis, and therefore would not have been prevented by routine testing at 1 year. And overall, event rates were “quite low, and most likely reflect adherence to guideline recommendations” in the trial. For example, 99% of patients were receiving statins, and 74% of the procedures used intravascular imaging for the PCI procedures, “a much greater proportion of use than most centers in the United States,” she noted.
“The POST-PCI trial provides compelling new evidence for a future class III recommendation for routine surveillance testing after PCI,” Dr. Tamis-Holland concluded “Until then, we must refrain from prescribing surveillance stress testing to our patients after PCI, in the absence of other clinical signs or symptoms suggestive of stent failure.”
Commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, said that for decades it’s been thought that patients who had high-risk PCI needed to be followed more closely for potential future events.
“And it actually turned out there was no difference in outcomes between the groups,” he said in an interview.
“So, I think it’s a good study – well conducted, good numbers – that answers the question that routine functional stress testing, even for high-risk PCI patients, is not effective or cost effective or beneficial on a yearly basis,” he said. “I think it will help frame care that patients will just be followed with best medical therapy and then if they have recurrence of symptoms they would be considered for further evaluation, either with stress testing or angiography.”
High-risk characteristics
Current guidelines do not advocate the use of routine stress testing after revascularization, the authors wrote in their paper. “However, surveillance with the use of imaging-based stress testing may be considered in high-risk patients at 6 months after a revascularization procedure (class IIb recommendation), and routine imaging-based stress testing may be considered at 1 year after PCI and more than 5 years after CABG [coronary artery bypass graft] (class IIb recommendation).”
But in real-world clinical practice, Dr. Park said, “follow-up strategy for patients who underwent PCI or CABG is still undetermined.” Particularly, “it could be more problematic in high-risk PCI patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics. Thus, we performed this POST-PCI trial comparing routine stress testing follow-up strategy versus standard-care follow-up strategy in high-risk PCI patients.”
The researchers randomly assigned 1,706 patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics who had undergone PCI to a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing, including nuclear stress testing, exercise electrocardiography, or stress echocardiography at 1 year, or to standard care alone.
High-risk anatomical features included left main or bifurcation disease; restenotic or long, diffuse lesions; or bypass graft disease. High-risk clinical characteristics included diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, or enzyme-positive acute coronary syndrome.
Mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 21.0% had left main disease, 43.5% had bifurcation disease, 69.8% had multivessel disease, 70.1% had diffuse long lesions, 38.7% had diabetes, and 96.4% had been treated with drug-eluting stents.
At 2 years, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 46 of 849 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 5.5%) in the functional-testing group and in 51 of 857 (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 6.0%) in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.35; P = .62). There were no between-group differences in the components of the primary outcome.
Secondary endpoints included invasive coronary angiography or repeat revascularization. At 2 years, 12.3% of the patients in the functional-testing group and 9.3% in the standard-care group had undergone invasive coronary angiography (difference, 2.99 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.01 to 5.99 percentage points), and 8.1% and 5.8% of patients, respectively, had a repeat revascularization procedure (difference, 2.23 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.22 to 4.68 percentage points).
Positive results on stress tests were more common with nuclear imaging than with exercise ECG or stress echocardiography, the authors noted. Subsequent coronary angiography and repeat revascularization were more common in patients with positive results on nuclear stress imaging and exercise ECG than in those with discordant results between nuclear imaging and exercise ECG.
POST-PCI was funded by the CardioVascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Park reported grants from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Tamis-Holland reported “other” funding from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2022