CAD & Atherosclerosis

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Adults aged 85 years and older who logged an hour or more of walking each week had a 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with less active peers, according to data from more than 7,000 individuals.

“Aging is accompanied by reduced physical activity and increased sedentary behavior, and reduced physical activity is associated with decreased life expectancy,” Moo-Nyun Jin, MD, of Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

Reduced physical activity was especially likely in the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.

oneinchpunch/Thinkstock

“Promoting walking may be a simple way to help older adults avoid inactivity and encourage an active lifestyle for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk reduction,” Dr. Jin said.

Although walking is generally an easy form of exercise for the older adult population, the specific benefit of walking on reducing mortality has not been well studied, according to Dr. Jin and colleagues.

For adults of any age, current guidelines recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate activity or 75 minutes per week of vigorous activity, but the amount of physical activity tends to decline with age, and activity recommendations are more difficult to meet, the authors wrote in a press release accompanying their study.

In the study, to be presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 28 (Abstract 85643), the researchers reviewed data from 7,047 adults aged 85 years and older who participated in the Korean National Health Screening Program. The average age of the study population was 87 years, and 68% were women. Participants completed questionnaires about the amount of time spent in leisure time activities each week, including walking at a slow pace, moderate activity (such as cycling or brisk walking), and vigorous activity (such as running).

Those who walked at a slow pace for at least 1 hour per week had a 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality and a 39% reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality, compared with inactive participants.

The proportions of participants who reported walking, moderate activity,­ and vigorous ­intensity physical activity were 42.5%, 14.7%, and 11.0%, respectively. Roughly one-third (33%) of those who reported slow walking each week also reported moderate or vigorous physical activity.

However, walking for 1 hour per week significantly reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality among individuals who reported walking only, without other moderate or vigorous physical activity (hazard ratio, 0.50 and 0.46, respectively).

“Walking was linked with a lower likelihood of dying in older adults, regardless of whether or not they did any moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” Dr. Jin told this news organization. “Our study indicates that walking even just 1 hour every week is advantageous to those aged 85 years and older compared to being inactive.”

The hour of walking need not be in long bouts, 10 minutes each day will do, Dr. Jin added.

The participants were divided into five groups based on reported amount of weekly walking. More than half (57.5%) reported no slow walking, 8.5% walked less than 1 hour per week, 12.0% walked 1-2 hours, 8.7% walked 2-3 hours, and 13.3% walked more than 3 hours.

Although the study was limited by the reliance on self-reports, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the value of easy walking for adults aged 85 years and older compared to being inactive.

“Walking may present an opportunity for promoting physical activity among the elderly population, offering a simple way to avoid inactivity and increase physical activity,” said Dr. Jin. However, more research is needed to evaluate the association between mortality and walking by objective measurement of walking levels, using a device such as a smart watch, he noted.

 

Results are preliminary

“This is an observational study, not an experiment, so it means causality cannot be presumed,” said Maria Fiatarone Singh, MD, a geriatrician with a focus on exercise physiology at the University of Sydney, in an interview. “In other words, it is possible that diseases resulting in mortality prevented people from walking rather than the other way around,” she noted. The only published experimental study on exercise and mortality in older adults was conducted by Dr. Fiatarone Singh and colleagues in Norway. In that study, published in the British Medical Journal in 2020, high-intensity training programs were associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with inactive controls and individuals who engaged in moderate intensity exercise.

The current study “would have needed to control for many factors related to mortality, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, malnutrition, and dementia to see what residual benefit might be related to walking,” Dr. Fiatarone Singh said.

“Although walking seems easy and safe, in fact people who are frail, sarcopenic, osteoporotic, or have fallen are recommended to do resistance and balance training rather than walking, and add walking later when they are able to do it safely,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fiatarone Singh had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults aged 85 years and older who logged an hour or more of walking each week had a 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with less active peers, according to data from more than 7,000 individuals.

“Aging is accompanied by reduced physical activity and increased sedentary behavior, and reduced physical activity is associated with decreased life expectancy,” Moo-Nyun Jin, MD, of Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

Reduced physical activity was especially likely in the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.

oneinchpunch/Thinkstock

“Promoting walking may be a simple way to help older adults avoid inactivity and encourage an active lifestyle for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk reduction,” Dr. Jin said.

Although walking is generally an easy form of exercise for the older adult population, the specific benefit of walking on reducing mortality has not been well studied, according to Dr. Jin and colleagues.

For adults of any age, current guidelines recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate activity or 75 minutes per week of vigorous activity, but the amount of physical activity tends to decline with age, and activity recommendations are more difficult to meet, the authors wrote in a press release accompanying their study.

In the study, to be presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 28 (Abstract 85643), the researchers reviewed data from 7,047 adults aged 85 years and older who participated in the Korean National Health Screening Program. The average age of the study population was 87 years, and 68% were women. Participants completed questionnaires about the amount of time spent in leisure time activities each week, including walking at a slow pace, moderate activity (such as cycling or brisk walking), and vigorous activity (such as running).

Those who walked at a slow pace for at least 1 hour per week had a 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality and a 39% reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality, compared with inactive participants.

The proportions of participants who reported walking, moderate activity,­ and vigorous ­intensity physical activity were 42.5%, 14.7%, and 11.0%, respectively. Roughly one-third (33%) of those who reported slow walking each week also reported moderate or vigorous physical activity.

However, walking for 1 hour per week significantly reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality among individuals who reported walking only, without other moderate or vigorous physical activity (hazard ratio, 0.50 and 0.46, respectively).

“Walking was linked with a lower likelihood of dying in older adults, regardless of whether or not they did any moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” Dr. Jin told this news organization. “Our study indicates that walking even just 1 hour every week is advantageous to those aged 85 years and older compared to being inactive.”

The hour of walking need not be in long bouts, 10 minutes each day will do, Dr. Jin added.

The participants were divided into five groups based on reported amount of weekly walking. More than half (57.5%) reported no slow walking, 8.5% walked less than 1 hour per week, 12.0% walked 1-2 hours, 8.7% walked 2-3 hours, and 13.3% walked more than 3 hours.

Although the study was limited by the reliance on self-reports, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the value of easy walking for adults aged 85 years and older compared to being inactive.

“Walking may present an opportunity for promoting physical activity among the elderly population, offering a simple way to avoid inactivity and increase physical activity,” said Dr. Jin. However, more research is needed to evaluate the association between mortality and walking by objective measurement of walking levels, using a device such as a smart watch, he noted.

 

Results are preliminary

“This is an observational study, not an experiment, so it means causality cannot be presumed,” said Maria Fiatarone Singh, MD, a geriatrician with a focus on exercise physiology at the University of Sydney, in an interview. “In other words, it is possible that diseases resulting in mortality prevented people from walking rather than the other way around,” she noted. The only published experimental study on exercise and mortality in older adults was conducted by Dr. Fiatarone Singh and colleagues in Norway. In that study, published in the British Medical Journal in 2020, high-intensity training programs were associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with inactive controls and individuals who engaged in moderate intensity exercise.

The current study “would have needed to control for many factors related to mortality, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, malnutrition, and dementia to see what residual benefit might be related to walking,” Dr. Fiatarone Singh said.

“Although walking seems easy and safe, in fact people who are frail, sarcopenic, osteoporotic, or have fallen are recommended to do resistance and balance training rather than walking, and add walking later when they are able to do it safely,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fiatarone Singh had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults aged 85 years and older who logged an hour or more of walking each week had a 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with less active peers, according to data from more than 7,000 individuals.

“Aging is accompanied by reduced physical activity and increased sedentary behavior, and reduced physical activity is associated with decreased life expectancy,” Moo-Nyun Jin, MD, of Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

Reduced physical activity was especially likely in the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.

oneinchpunch/Thinkstock

“Promoting walking may be a simple way to help older adults avoid inactivity and encourage an active lifestyle for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk reduction,” Dr. Jin said.

Although walking is generally an easy form of exercise for the older adult population, the specific benefit of walking on reducing mortality has not been well studied, according to Dr. Jin and colleagues.

For adults of any age, current guidelines recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate activity or 75 minutes per week of vigorous activity, but the amount of physical activity tends to decline with age, and activity recommendations are more difficult to meet, the authors wrote in a press release accompanying their study.

In the study, to be presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 28 (Abstract 85643), the researchers reviewed data from 7,047 adults aged 85 years and older who participated in the Korean National Health Screening Program. The average age of the study population was 87 years, and 68% were women. Participants completed questionnaires about the amount of time spent in leisure time activities each week, including walking at a slow pace, moderate activity (such as cycling or brisk walking), and vigorous activity (such as running).

Those who walked at a slow pace for at least 1 hour per week had a 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality and a 39% reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality, compared with inactive participants.

The proportions of participants who reported walking, moderate activity,­ and vigorous ­intensity physical activity were 42.5%, 14.7%, and 11.0%, respectively. Roughly one-third (33%) of those who reported slow walking each week also reported moderate or vigorous physical activity.

However, walking for 1 hour per week significantly reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality among individuals who reported walking only, without other moderate or vigorous physical activity (hazard ratio, 0.50 and 0.46, respectively).

“Walking was linked with a lower likelihood of dying in older adults, regardless of whether or not they did any moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” Dr. Jin told this news organization. “Our study indicates that walking even just 1 hour every week is advantageous to those aged 85 years and older compared to being inactive.”

The hour of walking need not be in long bouts, 10 minutes each day will do, Dr. Jin added.

The participants were divided into five groups based on reported amount of weekly walking. More than half (57.5%) reported no slow walking, 8.5% walked less than 1 hour per week, 12.0% walked 1-2 hours, 8.7% walked 2-3 hours, and 13.3% walked more than 3 hours.

Although the study was limited by the reliance on self-reports, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the value of easy walking for adults aged 85 years and older compared to being inactive.

“Walking may present an opportunity for promoting physical activity among the elderly population, offering a simple way to avoid inactivity and increase physical activity,” said Dr. Jin. However, more research is needed to evaluate the association between mortality and walking by objective measurement of walking levels, using a device such as a smart watch, he noted.

 

Results are preliminary

“This is an observational study, not an experiment, so it means causality cannot be presumed,” said Maria Fiatarone Singh, MD, a geriatrician with a focus on exercise physiology at the University of Sydney, in an interview. “In other words, it is possible that diseases resulting in mortality prevented people from walking rather than the other way around,” she noted. The only published experimental study on exercise and mortality in older adults was conducted by Dr. Fiatarone Singh and colleagues in Norway. In that study, published in the British Medical Journal in 2020, high-intensity training programs were associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with inactive controls and individuals who engaged in moderate intensity exercise.

The current study “would have needed to control for many factors related to mortality, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, malnutrition, and dementia to see what residual benefit might be related to walking,” Dr. Fiatarone Singh said.

“Although walking seems easy and safe, in fact people who are frail, sarcopenic, osteoporotic, or have fallen are recommended to do resistance and balance training rather than walking, and add walking later when they are able to do it safely,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fiatarone Singh had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

Cholesterol levels in American adults have improved over the previous decade, but a large cross-sectional analysis of more than 30,000 U.S. adults has found notable disparities in cholesterol control, particularly among Asian adults, lower lipid control rates among Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites, and no appreciable improvements for people taking statins.

“We found that total cholesterol improved significantly among U.S. adults from 2008 to 2018,” senior study author Rishi Wadhera, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “When we looked at rates of lipid control among adults treated with statins, we found no significant improvements from 2008 through 2018.”

He noted the patterns for lipid control were consistent for women and men, adding, “In contrast to all other racial and ethnic groups, Mexican American and Black adults did experience significant improvements in cholesterol control. Despite this progress, rates of cholesterol control still remained significantly lower in Black adults compared to White adults.”

The study analyzed lipid concentrations from 33,040 adults ages 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), using 2007-2008 as the baseline and 2017-2018 as the endpoint. With lipid control defined as total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or less, the analysis showed that total cholesterol improved in the overall population from 197 to 189 mg/dL in that time (95% confidence interval, –12.2 to –4.9 mg/dL; P < .001).

The study analyzed lipid trends in several demographic categories. Age-adjusted total cholesterol for women improved significantly, from 199 to 192 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], –11.6 to –3.6 mg/dL; P < .001), but improved slightly more for men, from 195 to 185 mg/dL (95% CI, –14 to –5.1 mg/dL; P < .001).

Overall, age-adjusted total cholesterol improved significantly for Blacks (–7.8 mg/dL), Mexican Americans (–11.3 mg/dL), other Hispanic adults (–8 mg/dL) and Whites (–8.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for all), but not for Asian adults, measured from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018: –.2 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.5 to 6.2 mg/dL; P = .9).

The study found that LDL cholesterol, on an age-adjusted basis, improved significantly overall, from 116 mg/dL in 2007-2008 to 111 mg/dL in 2017-2018 (95% CI, –8.3 to –1.4 mg/dL; P = .001). However, unlike total cholesterol, this improvement didn’t carry over to most ethnic groups. Mexican American adults (–8 mg/dL; P = .01) and Whites (–5.9 mg/dL; P = .001) showed significant improvements, but Asian, Black or other Hispanic adults didn’t.

The study also evaluated lipid control in people taking statins and found that, overall, it didn’t change significantly: from 78.5% in 2007-2008 to 79.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .27). Mexican American adults were the only ethnic group that showed significant improvement in lipid control, going from 73% in 2007-2008 to 86.5% in 2017-2018 (P = .008).

Disparities in lipid control

Women had notably lower lipid control rates than men, with an odds ratio of .52 in 2007-2010 (P < .001), with similar patterns found in 2011-2014 (OR, 0.48) and 2015-2018 (OR, 0.54, P < .001 for both).

Lipid control worsened over time for Black and other Hispanic adults compared to Whites. In 2007-2010, lipid control rates among the studied ethnic groups were similar, a trend that carried over to the 2011-2014 study interval and included Asian adults. However, in 2015-2018, Blacks had lower rates of lipid control compared to Whites (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, .47-.94; P = .03), as did other Hispanic adults (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, .37-.95; P = .04).

These disparities between sexes and ethnic groups warrant further investigation, Dr. Wadhera said. “We were surprised that women had significantly lower rates of cholesterol control than men,” he said. “We need to better understand whether gaps in care, such barriers in access, less frequent lab monitoring of cholesterol, or less intensive prescribing of important treatments, contribute to these differences.”

He called the lower lipid control rates in Black and Hispanic adults “concerning, especially because rates of heart attacks and strokes remain high in these groups. ... Efforts to identify gaps in care and increase and intensify medical therapy are needed, as treatment rates in these populations are low.”

While the study collected data before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Wadhera acknowledged that the management of cardiovascular risk factors may have worsened because of it. “Monitoring cholesterol levels and control rates in the U.S. population as we emerge from the pandemic will be critically important,” he said.

In an accompanying editorial, Hermes Florez, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, and colleagues called for adequately powered studies to further investigate the disparities in the Asian and Hispanic populations. “Worse rates of cholesterol control observed in women and in minority populations deserve special attention,” they wrote.

They noted that future studies should consider the impact of guidelines and recommendations that emerged since the study started, namely from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 guidelines, Healthy People 2030, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (JAMA. 2022 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.13044).

“More important, future work must focus on how to effectively eliminate those disparities and better control modifiable risk factors to enhance outcomes for all individuals regardless of race and ethnicity,” Dr. Florez and colleagues wrote.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera disclosed relationships with CVS Health and Abbott. Dr. Florez and colleagues have no disclosures.

A 5-minute bout of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription heart drugs was associated with favorable perceptions of both medication use and pharmaceutical companies, but did not seem to negate intentions to use lifestyle interventions, a survey study shows.

Participants who watched ads for various prescription heart drugs, with or without price disclosure, were more likely to report positive perceptions of drug companies and intentions to take actions such as switching medications.

AlShadsky/Fotolia.com

The ads did not seem to affect intentions to eat healthfully and exercise.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.
 

DTCA ‘unlikely to have an adverse effect’

“Increasing prevalence of DTCA may promote an overreliance on medication over healthy lifestyle choices to manage chronic conditions,” coauthor Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a PhD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization. “Thus, we hypothesized that DTCA exposure would reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in preventive health behaviors.”

“However,” she said, “our results did not support this hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to DTCA for heart disease medication is unlikely to have an adverse effect on individuals’ intentions to engage in diet and exercise.”

That said, she added, “DTCA of prescription drugs can contribute to rising drug costs due to overprescribing of both inappropriate and brand-name drugs over cheaper generic alternatives. While we do not examine this mechanism in our paper, this remains an important question for future research.”

For the study, the team recruited 2,874 individuals (mean age, 53.8 years; 54% men; 83% White) from a U.S. nationally representative sample of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions: DTCA for heart disease medications, DTCA for heart disease medications with price disclosure, or nonpharmaceutical advertising (control). Each group watched five 1-minute videos for a total of 5 minutes of advertising exposure.

One group viewed ads for four heart disease medications – two ads for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) and one each for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer), evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), and ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca); the second group saw the same ads, but with prices spliced in; and controls watched videos for nondrug products, such as consumer electronics.

Participants then completed a questionnaire to measure medication- and lifestyle-related intentions, as well as health-related beliefs and perceptions. Using a scale of 1 (highly unlikely) to 5 (highly likely), they rated the likelihood of their switching medication, asking a physician or insurer about a medication, searching for the drug online, or taking it as directed. The same scale was used to rate the likelihood of their being more physically active or eating more healthfully.

On a scale of 1 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree), they also related their perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers as being competent, innovative, and trustworthy.

To measure the magnitude of DTCA associations, the researchers calculated marginal effects (MEs) of treatment – that is, the difference in probability of an outcome between the treatment and control arms.

They found a positive association between DTCA and medication-related behavioral intentions, including intention to switch medication (ME, 0.004; P = .002) and engage in information-seeking behaviors (ME, 0.02; P = .01).

There was no evidence suggesting that pharmaceutical DTCA discouraged use of nonpharmacologic lifestyle interventions to help manage heart disease. DTCA also was positively associated with consumers’ favorable perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers (competence: ME, 0.03; P = .01; innovative: ME, 0.03; P = .008).

No differential associations were seen for price disclosures in DTCA.
 

Questions remain

The authors acknowledged that the study focused on short-term behavioral intentions and that “future research should focus on the long-term effects of advertising in a real-world randomized setting.”

Ms. Singh said additional questions, some of which her team is investigating, include “understanding the interaction between government policies [such as] drug pricing reforms and firms’ advertising decisions; understanding whether observed changes in individuals’ health beliefs translate into actual changes to information-seeking behavior and health care utilization; and whether the demographic, political, and social characteristics of individuals shape their behavioral responses to advertising.”

Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview that the findings don’t surprise her. “The caveat is that this study was an online survey, so it only captured the beliefs and intentions, but not patient demand for the product and use of the product.”

“I do believe DTCA can create positive intentions towards the product ... and could make people more receptive to interventions,” she said. However, the information must be presented in a balanced way.

In addition, she noted, “price is still important. I think people take pricing into account when deciding to proceed with an intervention. If the price is ‘right’ or a little lower than expected, then they will likely consider the product. But if the price is significantly lower, then they may not trust that it is a good product. Generic drugs are an example. Even though they are approved and far cheaper than brand names, patients are often skeptical to take them.”

The study was funded with a grant from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Affordability Cures Consortium. Ms. Singh and coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 5-minute bout of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription heart drugs was associated with favorable perceptions of both medication use and pharmaceutical companies, but did not seem to negate intentions to use lifestyle interventions, a survey study shows.

Participants who watched ads for various prescription heart drugs, with or without price disclosure, were more likely to report positive perceptions of drug companies and intentions to take actions such as switching medications.

AlShadsky/Fotolia.com

The ads did not seem to affect intentions to eat healthfully and exercise.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.
 

DTCA ‘unlikely to have an adverse effect’

“Increasing prevalence of DTCA may promote an overreliance on medication over healthy lifestyle choices to manage chronic conditions,” coauthor Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a PhD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization. “Thus, we hypothesized that DTCA exposure would reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in preventive health behaviors.”

“However,” she said, “our results did not support this hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to DTCA for heart disease medication is unlikely to have an adverse effect on individuals’ intentions to engage in diet and exercise.”

That said, she added, “DTCA of prescription drugs can contribute to rising drug costs due to overprescribing of both inappropriate and brand-name drugs over cheaper generic alternatives. While we do not examine this mechanism in our paper, this remains an important question for future research.”

For the study, the team recruited 2,874 individuals (mean age, 53.8 years; 54% men; 83% White) from a U.S. nationally representative sample of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions: DTCA for heart disease medications, DTCA for heart disease medications with price disclosure, or nonpharmaceutical advertising (control). Each group watched five 1-minute videos for a total of 5 minutes of advertising exposure.

One group viewed ads for four heart disease medications – two ads for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) and one each for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer), evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), and ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca); the second group saw the same ads, but with prices spliced in; and controls watched videos for nondrug products, such as consumer electronics.

Participants then completed a questionnaire to measure medication- and lifestyle-related intentions, as well as health-related beliefs and perceptions. Using a scale of 1 (highly unlikely) to 5 (highly likely), they rated the likelihood of their switching medication, asking a physician or insurer about a medication, searching for the drug online, or taking it as directed. The same scale was used to rate the likelihood of their being more physically active or eating more healthfully.

On a scale of 1 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree), they also related their perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers as being competent, innovative, and trustworthy.

To measure the magnitude of DTCA associations, the researchers calculated marginal effects (MEs) of treatment – that is, the difference in probability of an outcome between the treatment and control arms.

They found a positive association between DTCA and medication-related behavioral intentions, including intention to switch medication (ME, 0.004; P = .002) and engage in information-seeking behaviors (ME, 0.02; P = .01).

There was no evidence suggesting that pharmaceutical DTCA discouraged use of nonpharmacologic lifestyle interventions to help manage heart disease. DTCA also was positively associated with consumers’ favorable perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers (competence: ME, 0.03; P = .01; innovative: ME, 0.03; P = .008).

No differential associations were seen for price disclosures in DTCA.
 

Questions remain

The authors acknowledged that the study focused on short-term behavioral intentions and that “future research should focus on the long-term effects of advertising in a real-world randomized setting.”

Ms. Singh said additional questions, some of which her team is investigating, include “understanding the interaction between government policies [such as] drug pricing reforms and firms’ advertising decisions; understanding whether observed changes in individuals’ health beliefs translate into actual changes to information-seeking behavior and health care utilization; and whether the demographic, political, and social characteristics of individuals shape their behavioral responses to advertising.”

Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview that the findings don’t surprise her. “The caveat is that this study was an online survey, so it only captured the beliefs and intentions, but not patient demand for the product and use of the product.”

“I do believe DTCA can create positive intentions towards the product ... and could make people more receptive to interventions,” she said. However, the information must be presented in a balanced way.

In addition, she noted, “price is still important. I think people take pricing into account when deciding to proceed with an intervention. If the price is ‘right’ or a little lower than expected, then they will likely consider the product. But if the price is significantly lower, then they may not trust that it is a good product. Generic drugs are an example. Even though they are approved and far cheaper than brand names, patients are often skeptical to take them.”

The study was funded with a grant from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Affordability Cures Consortium. Ms. Singh and coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 5-minute bout of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription heart drugs was associated with favorable perceptions of both medication use and pharmaceutical companies, but did not seem to negate intentions to use lifestyle interventions, a survey study shows.

Participants who watched ads for various prescription heart drugs, with or without price disclosure, were more likely to report positive perceptions of drug companies and intentions to take actions such as switching medications.

AlShadsky/Fotolia.com

The ads did not seem to affect intentions to eat healthfully and exercise.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.
 

DTCA ‘unlikely to have an adverse effect’

“Increasing prevalence of DTCA may promote an overreliance on medication over healthy lifestyle choices to manage chronic conditions,” coauthor Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a PhD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization. “Thus, we hypothesized that DTCA exposure would reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in preventive health behaviors.”

“However,” she said, “our results did not support this hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to DTCA for heart disease medication is unlikely to have an adverse effect on individuals’ intentions to engage in diet and exercise.”

That said, she added, “DTCA of prescription drugs can contribute to rising drug costs due to overprescribing of both inappropriate and brand-name drugs over cheaper generic alternatives. While we do not examine this mechanism in our paper, this remains an important question for future research.”

For the study, the team recruited 2,874 individuals (mean age, 53.8 years; 54% men; 83% White) from a U.S. nationally representative sample of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions: DTCA for heart disease medications, DTCA for heart disease medications with price disclosure, or nonpharmaceutical advertising (control). Each group watched five 1-minute videos for a total of 5 minutes of advertising exposure.

One group viewed ads for four heart disease medications – two ads for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) and one each for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer), evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), and ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca); the second group saw the same ads, but with prices spliced in; and controls watched videos for nondrug products, such as consumer electronics.

Participants then completed a questionnaire to measure medication- and lifestyle-related intentions, as well as health-related beliefs and perceptions. Using a scale of 1 (highly unlikely) to 5 (highly likely), they rated the likelihood of their switching medication, asking a physician or insurer about a medication, searching for the drug online, or taking it as directed. The same scale was used to rate the likelihood of their being more physically active or eating more healthfully.

On a scale of 1 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree), they also related their perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers as being competent, innovative, and trustworthy.

To measure the magnitude of DTCA associations, the researchers calculated marginal effects (MEs) of treatment – that is, the difference in probability of an outcome between the treatment and control arms.

They found a positive association between DTCA and medication-related behavioral intentions, including intention to switch medication (ME, 0.004; P = .002) and engage in information-seeking behaviors (ME, 0.02; P = .01).

There was no evidence suggesting that pharmaceutical DTCA discouraged use of nonpharmacologic lifestyle interventions to help manage heart disease. DTCA also was positively associated with consumers’ favorable perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers (competence: ME, 0.03; P = .01; innovative: ME, 0.03; P = .008).

No differential associations were seen for price disclosures in DTCA.
 

Questions remain

The authors acknowledged that the study focused on short-term behavioral intentions and that “future research should focus on the long-term effects of advertising in a real-world randomized setting.”

Ms. Singh said additional questions, some of which her team is investigating, include “understanding the interaction between government policies [such as] drug pricing reforms and firms’ advertising decisions; understanding whether observed changes in individuals’ health beliefs translate into actual changes to information-seeking behavior and health care utilization; and whether the demographic, political, and social characteristics of individuals shape their behavioral responses to advertising.”

Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview that the findings don’t surprise her. “The caveat is that this study was an online survey, so it only captured the beliefs and intentions, but not patient demand for the product and use of the product.”

“I do believe DTCA can create positive intentions towards the product ... and could make people more receptive to interventions,” she said. However, the information must be presented in a balanced way.

In addition, she noted, “price is still important. I think people take pricing into account when deciding to proceed with an intervention. If the price is ‘right’ or a little lower than expected, then they will likely consider the product. But if the price is significantly lower, then they may not trust that it is a good product. Generic drugs are an example. Even though they are approved and far cheaper than brand names, patients are often skeptical to take them.”

The study was funded with a grant from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Affordability Cures Consortium. Ms. Singh and coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptoms of six common cardiovascular diseases (CVD) – acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, valvular disorders, stroke, rhythm disorders, and peripheral vascular disease – often overlap and may vary over time and by sex, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement.

“Symptoms of these cardiovascular diseases can profoundly affect quality of life, and a clear understanding of them is critical for effective diagnosis and treatment decisions,” Corrine Y. Jurgens, PhD, chair of the writing committee, said in a news release.

Copyright pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

This scientific statement is a “compendium detailing the symptoms associated with CVD, similarities or differences in symptoms among the conditions, and sex differences in symptom presentation and reporting,” said Dr. Jurgens, associate professor at Connell School of Nursing, Boston College.

The new statement was published online in Circulation.

The writing group noted that measuring CVD symptoms can be challenging because of their subjective nature. Symptoms may go unrecognized or unreported if people don’t think they are important or are related to an existing health condition.

“Some people may not consider symptoms like fatigue, sleep disturbance, weight gain, and depression as important or related to cardiovascular disease. However, research indicates that subtle symptoms such as these may predict acute events and the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Jurgens said.
 

ACS – chest pain and associated symptoms

The writing group noted that chest pain is the most frequently reported symptom of ACS and has often been described as substernal pressure or discomfort and may radiate to the jaw, shoulder, arm, or upper back.

The most common co-occurring symptoms are dyspnea, diaphoresis, unusual fatigue, nausea, and lightheadedness. Women are more likely than men to report additional symptoms outside of chest pain.

As a result, they have often been labeled “atypical.” However, a recent AHA advisory notes that this label may have been caused by the lack of women included in the clinical trials from which the symptom lists were derived.

The writing group said there is a need to “harmonize” ACS symptom measurement in research. The current lack of harmonization of ACS symptom measurement in research hampers growth in cumulative evidence.

“Therefore, little can be done to synthesize salient findings about symptoms across ischemic heart disease/ACS studies and to incorporate evidence-based information about symptoms into treatment guidelines and patient education materials,” they cautioned. 
 

Heart failure

Turning to heart failure (HF), the writing group noted that dyspnea is the classic symptom and a common reason adults seek medical care.

However, early, more subtle symptoms should be recognized. These include gastrointestinal symptoms such as upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; fatigue; exercise intolerance; insomnia; pain (chest and otherwise); mood disturbances (primarily depression and anxiety); and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog, memory problems).

Women with HF report a wider variety of symptoms, are more likely to have depression and anxiety, and report a lower quality of life, compared with men with HF.

“It is important to account for dyspnea heterogeneity in both clinical practice and research by using nuanced measures and probing questions to capture this common and multifaceted symptom,” the writing group said.

“Monitoring symptoms on a spectrum, versus present or not present, with reliable and valid measures may enhance clinical care by identifying more quickly those who may be at risk for poor outcomes, such as lower quality of life, hospitalization, or death,” Dr. Jurgens added.

“Ultimately, we have work to do in terms of determining who needs more frequent monitoring or intervention to avert poor HF outcomes,” she said.
 

Valvular heart disease

Valvular heart disease is a frequent cause of HF, with symptoms generally indistinguishable from other HF causes. Rheumatic heart disease is still prevalent in low- and middle-income countries but has largely disappeared in high-income countries, with population aging and cardiomyopathies now key drivers of valve disease.

In the absence of acute severe valve dysfunction, patients generally have a prolonged asymptomatic period, followed by a period of progressive symptoms, resulting from the valve lesion itself or secondary myocardial remodeling and dysfunction, the writing group said. 

Symptoms of aortic valve disease often differ between men and women. Aortic stenosis is typically silent for years. As stenosis progresses, women report dyspnea and exercise intolerance more often than men. Women are also more likely to be physically frail and to have a higher New York Heart Association class (III/IV) than men. Men are more likely to have chest pain.

“Given the importance of symptom assessment, more work is needed to determine the incremental value of quantitative symptom measurement as an aid to clinical management,” the writing group said.
 

Stroke

For clinicians, classic stroke symptoms (face drooping, arm weakness, speech difficulty), in addition to nonclassic symptoms, such as partial sensory deficit, dysarthria, vertigo, and diplopia, should be considered for activating a stroke response team, the group says.

A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that women with stroke were more likely to present with nonfocal symptoms (for example, headache, altered mentality, and coma/stupor) than men, they noted.

To enhance public education about stroke symptoms and to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of stroke, they say research is needed to better understand the presentation of stroke symptoms by other select demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity, age, and stroke subtype.

Poststroke screening should include assessment for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain, the writing group said.
 

Rhythm disorders

Turning to rhythm disorders, the writing group wrote that cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AFib), atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, bradyarrhythmia, and ventricular tachycardia, present with common symptoms.

Palpitations are a characteristic symptom of many cardiac arrhythmias. The most common cardiac arrhythmia, AFib, may present with palpitations or less specific symptoms (fatigue, dyspnea, dizziness) that occur with a broad range of rhythm disorders. Chest pain, dizziness, presyncope/syncope, and anxiety occur less frequently in AFib, the group said.

Palpitations are considered the typical symptom presentation for AFib, yet patients with new-onset AFib often present with nonspecific symptoms or no symptoms, they pointed out.

Women and younger individuals with AFib typically present with palpitations, whereas men are more commonly asymptomatic. Older age also increases the likelihood of a nonclassic or asymptomatic presentation of AFib.

Despite non-Hispanic Black individuals being at lower risk for development of AFib, research suggests that Black patients are burdened more with palpitations, dyspnea on exertion, exercise intolerance, dizziness, dyspnea at rest, and chest discomfort, compared with White or Hispanic patients.

Peripheral vascular disease

Classic claudication occurs in roughly one-third of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is defined as calf pain that occurs in one or both legs with exertion (walking), does not begin at rest, and resolves within 10 minutes of standing still or rest.

However, non–calf exercise pain is reported more frequently than classic claudication symptoms. Women with PAD are more likely to have nonclassic symptoms or an absence of symptoms.

Assessing symptoms at rest, during exercise, and during recovery can assist with classifying symptoms as ischemic or not, the writing group said.

PAD with symptoms is associated with an increased risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, with men at higher risk than women.

Similar to PAD, peripheral venous disease (PVD) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Clinical classification of PVD includes symptoms such as leg pain, aching, fatigue, heaviness, cramping, tightness, restless legs syndrome, and skin irritation.

“Measuring vascular symptoms includes assessing quality of life and activity limitations, as well as the psychological impact of the disease. However, existing measures are often based on the clinician’s appraisal rather than the individual’s self-reported symptoms and severity of symptoms,” Dr. Jurgens commented.
 

Watch for depression

Finally, the writing group highlighted the importance of depression in cardiac patients, which occurs at about twice the rate, compared with people without any medical condition (10% vs. 5%).

In a prior statement, the AHA said depression should be considered a risk factor for worse outcomes in patients with ACS or CVD diagnosis.

The new statement highlights that people with persistent chest pain, people with HF, as well as stroke survivors and people with PAD commonly have depression and/or anxiety. In addition, cognitive changes after a stroke may affect how and whether symptoms are experienced or noticed.

While symptom relief is an important part of managing CVD, it’s also important to recognize that “factors such as depression and cognitive function may affect symptom detection and reporting,” Dr. Jurgens said.

“Monitoring and measuring symptoms with tools that appropriately account for depression and cognitive function may help to improve patient care by identifying more quickly people who may be at higher risk,” she added.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Hypertension; and the Stroke Council. The research had no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptoms of six common cardiovascular diseases (CVD) – acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, valvular disorders, stroke, rhythm disorders, and peripheral vascular disease – often overlap and may vary over time and by sex, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement.

“Symptoms of these cardiovascular diseases can profoundly affect quality of life, and a clear understanding of them is critical for effective diagnosis and treatment decisions,” Corrine Y. Jurgens, PhD, chair of the writing committee, said in a news release.

Copyright pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

This scientific statement is a “compendium detailing the symptoms associated with CVD, similarities or differences in symptoms among the conditions, and sex differences in symptom presentation and reporting,” said Dr. Jurgens, associate professor at Connell School of Nursing, Boston College.

The new statement was published online in Circulation.

The writing group noted that measuring CVD symptoms can be challenging because of their subjective nature. Symptoms may go unrecognized or unreported if people don’t think they are important or are related to an existing health condition.

“Some people may not consider symptoms like fatigue, sleep disturbance, weight gain, and depression as important or related to cardiovascular disease. However, research indicates that subtle symptoms such as these may predict acute events and the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Jurgens said.
 

ACS – chest pain and associated symptoms

The writing group noted that chest pain is the most frequently reported symptom of ACS and has often been described as substernal pressure or discomfort and may radiate to the jaw, shoulder, arm, or upper back.

The most common co-occurring symptoms are dyspnea, diaphoresis, unusual fatigue, nausea, and lightheadedness. Women are more likely than men to report additional symptoms outside of chest pain.

As a result, they have often been labeled “atypical.” However, a recent AHA advisory notes that this label may have been caused by the lack of women included in the clinical trials from which the symptom lists were derived.

The writing group said there is a need to “harmonize” ACS symptom measurement in research. The current lack of harmonization of ACS symptom measurement in research hampers growth in cumulative evidence.

“Therefore, little can be done to synthesize salient findings about symptoms across ischemic heart disease/ACS studies and to incorporate evidence-based information about symptoms into treatment guidelines and patient education materials,” they cautioned. 
 

Heart failure

Turning to heart failure (HF), the writing group noted that dyspnea is the classic symptom and a common reason adults seek medical care.

However, early, more subtle symptoms should be recognized. These include gastrointestinal symptoms such as upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; fatigue; exercise intolerance; insomnia; pain (chest and otherwise); mood disturbances (primarily depression and anxiety); and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog, memory problems).

Women with HF report a wider variety of symptoms, are more likely to have depression and anxiety, and report a lower quality of life, compared with men with HF.

“It is important to account for dyspnea heterogeneity in both clinical practice and research by using nuanced measures and probing questions to capture this common and multifaceted symptom,” the writing group said.

“Monitoring symptoms on a spectrum, versus present or not present, with reliable and valid measures may enhance clinical care by identifying more quickly those who may be at risk for poor outcomes, such as lower quality of life, hospitalization, or death,” Dr. Jurgens added.

“Ultimately, we have work to do in terms of determining who needs more frequent monitoring or intervention to avert poor HF outcomes,” she said.
 

Valvular heart disease

Valvular heart disease is a frequent cause of HF, with symptoms generally indistinguishable from other HF causes. Rheumatic heart disease is still prevalent in low- and middle-income countries but has largely disappeared in high-income countries, with population aging and cardiomyopathies now key drivers of valve disease.

In the absence of acute severe valve dysfunction, patients generally have a prolonged asymptomatic period, followed by a period of progressive symptoms, resulting from the valve lesion itself or secondary myocardial remodeling and dysfunction, the writing group said. 

Symptoms of aortic valve disease often differ between men and women. Aortic stenosis is typically silent for years. As stenosis progresses, women report dyspnea and exercise intolerance more often than men. Women are also more likely to be physically frail and to have a higher New York Heart Association class (III/IV) than men. Men are more likely to have chest pain.

“Given the importance of symptom assessment, more work is needed to determine the incremental value of quantitative symptom measurement as an aid to clinical management,” the writing group said.
 

Stroke

For clinicians, classic stroke symptoms (face drooping, arm weakness, speech difficulty), in addition to nonclassic symptoms, such as partial sensory deficit, dysarthria, vertigo, and diplopia, should be considered for activating a stroke response team, the group says.

A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that women with stroke were more likely to present with nonfocal symptoms (for example, headache, altered mentality, and coma/stupor) than men, they noted.

To enhance public education about stroke symptoms and to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of stroke, they say research is needed to better understand the presentation of stroke symptoms by other select demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity, age, and stroke subtype.

Poststroke screening should include assessment for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain, the writing group said.
 

Rhythm disorders

Turning to rhythm disorders, the writing group wrote that cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AFib), atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, bradyarrhythmia, and ventricular tachycardia, present with common symptoms.

Palpitations are a characteristic symptom of many cardiac arrhythmias. The most common cardiac arrhythmia, AFib, may present with palpitations or less specific symptoms (fatigue, dyspnea, dizziness) that occur with a broad range of rhythm disorders. Chest pain, dizziness, presyncope/syncope, and anxiety occur less frequently in AFib, the group said.

Palpitations are considered the typical symptom presentation for AFib, yet patients with new-onset AFib often present with nonspecific symptoms or no symptoms, they pointed out.

Women and younger individuals with AFib typically present with palpitations, whereas men are more commonly asymptomatic. Older age also increases the likelihood of a nonclassic or asymptomatic presentation of AFib.

Despite non-Hispanic Black individuals being at lower risk for development of AFib, research suggests that Black patients are burdened more with palpitations, dyspnea on exertion, exercise intolerance, dizziness, dyspnea at rest, and chest discomfort, compared with White or Hispanic patients.

Peripheral vascular disease

Classic claudication occurs in roughly one-third of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is defined as calf pain that occurs in one or both legs with exertion (walking), does not begin at rest, and resolves within 10 minutes of standing still or rest.

However, non–calf exercise pain is reported more frequently than classic claudication symptoms. Women with PAD are more likely to have nonclassic symptoms or an absence of symptoms.

Assessing symptoms at rest, during exercise, and during recovery can assist with classifying symptoms as ischemic or not, the writing group said.

PAD with symptoms is associated with an increased risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, with men at higher risk than women.

Similar to PAD, peripheral venous disease (PVD) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Clinical classification of PVD includes symptoms such as leg pain, aching, fatigue, heaviness, cramping, tightness, restless legs syndrome, and skin irritation.

“Measuring vascular symptoms includes assessing quality of life and activity limitations, as well as the psychological impact of the disease. However, existing measures are often based on the clinician’s appraisal rather than the individual’s self-reported symptoms and severity of symptoms,” Dr. Jurgens commented.
 

Watch for depression

Finally, the writing group highlighted the importance of depression in cardiac patients, which occurs at about twice the rate, compared with people without any medical condition (10% vs. 5%).

In a prior statement, the AHA said depression should be considered a risk factor for worse outcomes in patients with ACS or CVD diagnosis.

The new statement highlights that people with persistent chest pain, people with HF, as well as stroke survivors and people with PAD commonly have depression and/or anxiety. In addition, cognitive changes after a stroke may affect how and whether symptoms are experienced or noticed.

While symptom relief is an important part of managing CVD, it’s also important to recognize that “factors such as depression and cognitive function may affect symptom detection and reporting,” Dr. Jurgens said.

“Monitoring and measuring symptoms with tools that appropriately account for depression and cognitive function may help to improve patient care by identifying more quickly people who may be at higher risk,” she added.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Hypertension; and the Stroke Council. The research had no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptoms of six common cardiovascular diseases (CVD) – acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, valvular disorders, stroke, rhythm disorders, and peripheral vascular disease – often overlap and may vary over time and by sex, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement.

“Symptoms of these cardiovascular diseases can profoundly affect quality of life, and a clear understanding of them is critical for effective diagnosis and treatment decisions,” Corrine Y. Jurgens, PhD, chair of the writing committee, said in a news release.

Copyright pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

This scientific statement is a “compendium detailing the symptoms associated with CVD, similarities or differences in symptoms among the conditions, and sex differences in symptom presentation and reporting,” said Dr. Jurgens, associate professor at Connell School of Nursing, Boston College.

The new statement was published online in Circulation.

The writing group noted that measuring CVD symptoms can be challenging because of their subjective nature. Symptoms may go unrecognized or unreported if people don’t think they are important or are related to an existing health condition.

“Some people may not consider symptoms like fatigue, sleep disturbance, weight gain, and depression as important or related to cardiovascular disease. However, research indicates that subtle symptoms such as these may predict acute events and the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Jurgens said.
 

ACS – chest pain and associated symptoms

The writing group noted that chest pain is the most frequently reported symptom of ACS and has often been described as substernal pressure or discomfort and may radiate to the jaw, shoulder, arm, or upper back.

The most common co-occurring symptoms are dyspnea, diaphoresis, unusual fatigue, nausea, and lightheadedness. Women are more likely than men to report additional symptoms outside of chest pain.

As a result, they have often been labeled “atypical.” However, a recent AHA advisory notes that this label may have been caused by the lack of women included in the clinical trials from which the symptom lists were derived.

The writing group said there is a need to “harmonize” ACS symptom measurement in research. The current lack of harmonization of ACS symptom measurement in research hampers growth in cumulative evidence.

“Therefore, little can be done to synthesize salient findings about symptoms across ischemic heart disease/ACS studies and to incorporate evidence-based information about symptoms into treatment guidelines and patient education materials,” they cautioned. 
 

Heart failure

Turning to heart failure (HF), the writing group noted that dyspnea is the classic symptom and a common reason adults seek medical care.

However, early, more subtle symptoms should be recognized. These include gastrointestinal symptoms such as upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; fatigue; exercise intolerance; insomnia; pain (chest and otherwise); mood disturbances (primarily depression and anxiety); and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog, memory problems).

Women with HF report a wider variety of symptoms, are more likely to have depression and anxiety, and report a lower quality of life, compared with men with HF.

“It is important to account for dyspnea heterogeneity in both clinical practice and research by using nuanced measures and probing questions to capture this common and multifaceted symptom,” the writing group said.

“Monitoring symptoms on a spectrum, versus present or not present, with reliable and valid measures may enhance clinical care by identifying more quickly those who may be at risk for poor outcomes, such as lower quality of life, hospitalization, or death,” Dr. Jurgens added.

“Ultimately, we have work to do in terms of determining who needs more frequent monitoring or intervention to avert poor HF outcomes,” she said.
 

Valvular heart disease

Valvular heart disease is a frequent cause of HF, with symptoms generally indistinguishable from other HF causes. Rheumatic heart disease is still prevalent in low- and middle-income countries but has largely disappeared in high-income countries, with population aging and cardiomyopathies now key drivers of valve disease.

In the absence of acute severe valve dysfunction, patients generally have a prolonged asymptomatic period, followed by a period of progressive symptoms, resulting from the valve lesion itself or secondary myocardial remodeling and dysfunction, the writing group said. 

Symptoms of aortic valve disease often differ between men and women. Aortic stenosis is typically silent for years. As stenosis progresses, women report dyspnea and exercise intolerance more often than men. Women are also more likely to be physically frail and to have a higher New York Heart Association class (III/IV) than men. Men are more likely to have chest pain.

“Given the importance of symptom assessment, more work is needed to determine the incremental value of quantitative symptom measurement as an aid to clinical management,” the writing group said.
 

Stroke

For clinicians, classic stroke symptoms (face drooping, arm weakness, speech difficulty), in addition to nonclassic symptoms, such as partial sensory deficit, dysarthria, vertigo, and diplopia, should be considered for activating a stroke response team, the group says.

A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that women with stroke were more likely to present with nonfocal symptoms (for example, headache, altered mentality, and coma/stupor) than men, they noted.

To enhance public education about stroke symptoms and to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of stroke, they say research is needed to better understand the presentation of stroke symptoms by other select demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity, age, and stroke subtype.

Poststroke screening should include assessment for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain, the writing group said.
 

Rhythm disorders

Turning to rhythm disorders, the writing group wrote that cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AFib), atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, bradyarrhythmia, and ventricular tachycardia, present with common symptoms.

Palpitations are a characteristic symptom of many cardiac arrhythmias. The most common cardiac arrhythmia, AFib, may present with palpitations or less specific symptoms (fatigue, dyspnea, dizziness) that occur with a broad range of rhythm disorders. Chest pain, dizziness, presyncope/syncope, and anxiety occur less frequently in AFib, the group said.

Palpitations are considered the typical symptom presentation for AFib, yet patients with new-onset AFib often present with nonspecific symptoms or no symptoms, they pointed out.

Women and younger individuals with AFib typically present with palpitations, whereas men are more commonly asymptomatic. Older age also increases the likelihood of a nonclassic or asymptomatic presentation of AFib.

Despite non-Hispanic Black individuals being at lower risk for development of AFib, research suggests that Black patients are burdened more with palpitations, dyspnea on exertion, exercise intolerance, dizziness, dyspnea at rest, and chest discomfort, compared with White or Hispanic patients.

Peripheral vascular disease

Classic claudication occurs in roughly one-third of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is defined as calf pain that occurs in one or both legs with exertion (walking), does not begin at rest, and resolves within 10 minutes of standing still or rest.

However, non–calf exercise pain is reported more frequently than classic claudication symptoms. Women with PAD are more likely to have nonclassic symptoms or an absence of symptoms.

Assessing symptoms at rest, during exercise, and during recovery can assist with classifying symptoms as ischemic or not, the writing group said.

PAD with symptoms is associated with an increased risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, with men at higher risk than women.

Similar to PAD, peripheral venous disease (PVD) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Clinical classification of PVD includes symptoms such as leg pain, aching, fatigue, heaviness, cramping, tightness, restless legs syndrome, and skin irritation.

“Measuring vascular symptoms includes assessing quality of life and activity limitations, as well as the psychological impact of the disease. However, existing measures are often based on the clinician’s appraisal rather than the individual’s self-reported symptoms and severity of symptoms,” Dr. Jurgens commented.
 

Watch for depression

Finally, the writing group highlighted the importance of depression in cardiac patients, which occurs at about twice the rate, compared with people without any medical condition (10% vs. 5%).

In a prior statement, the AHA said depression should be considered a risk factor for worse outcomes in patients with ACS or CVD diagnosis.

The new statement highlights that people with persistent chest pain, people with HF, as well as stroke survivors and people with PAD commonly have depression and/or anxiety. In addition, cognitive changes after a stroke may affect how and whether symptoms are experienced or noticed.

While symptom relief is an important part of managing CVD, it’s also important to recognize that “factors such as depression and cognitive function may affect symptom detection and reporting,” Dr. Jurgens said.

“Monitoring and measuring symptoms with tools that appropriately account for depression and cognitive function may help to improve patient care by identifying more quickly people who may be at higher risk,” she added.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Hypertension; and the Stroke Council. The research had no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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