CAD & Atherosclerosis

The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.

Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.

Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.

There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.

“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

New generation

Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.

This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.

“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”

Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.

The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.

Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.

They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.

The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).

However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).

The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.

Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
 

Incremental improvement

On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.

“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.

He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.

In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.

Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.

She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials

“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.

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

The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.

Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.

Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.

There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.

“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

New generation

Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.

This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.

“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”

Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.

The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.

Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.

They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.

The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).

However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).

The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.

Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
 

Incremental improvement

On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.

“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.

He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.

In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.

Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.

She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials

“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.

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

The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.

Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.

Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.

There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.

“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

New generation

Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.

This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.

“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”

Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.

The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.

Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.

They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.

The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).

However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).

The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.

Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
 

Incremental improvement

On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.

“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.

He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.

In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.

Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.

She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials

“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Typically, artificial intelligence (AI) is applied to analyze a complex set of variables to make correlations not readily made by unassisted observation. But an AI offshoot, sometimes referred to as causal AI, incorporates causation not just association, and it appears capable of changing the paradigm for preventing cardiovascular (CV) events.

“Causal AI is a new generation of AI algorithms that empowers AI to move beyond prediction to help guide clinical decision-making for each individual,” reported Brian A. Ference, MD, director of research in translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

In a novel study testing this premise, called CAUSAL AI, this approach was explored with two major risk factors, elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and elevated systolic BP (SBP). Based on a deep learning algorithm that studied the impact of these risk factors on the biology of atherosclerosis, causal effects of these risk factors were assessed and then embedded in risk estimation.
 

Causal AI can predict treatment effect

The study showed that the accuracy of risk prediction can be improved markedly with causal AI, but, more importantly, it suggests that causal AI can predict the impact of specific actions to reduce this risk in the context of the patient’s trajectory toward CV events.

“Risk-estimating algorithms are used to select patients at high risk who may benefit from interventions to reduce risk, but they do not include the causal effects of changes in LDL-C and SBP,” Dr. Ference explained.

As a result, they “may not accurately estimate the baseline risk of cardiovascular events caused by a person’s LDL-C or SBP level or the benefit of treating these risk factors,” he added.

In the CAUSAL AI study, presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, risk prediction embedded with causal AI demonstrated the ability to match predicted events with actual events in several large sets of patient data.

“Embedding causal effects into risk-estimating algorithms accurately estimates baseline cardiovascular risk caused by LDL and SBP and the benefit of lowering LDL, SBP, or both beginning at any age and extending for any duration,” Dr. Ference said.

Deep-learning AI evaluated more than 300 gene variants

The deep-learning AI was based on Mendelian randomization studies evaluating 140 gene variants associated with LDL-C and 202 variants associated with SBP.

In one test of the predictive impact of causal AI, risk prediction was first conducted in 445,771 participants in the UK Biobank with the Joint British Societies (JBS3) risk calculator. Relative to actual events in this population, the JBS3 alone “consistently underestimated the increased risk caused by elevated LDL, blood pressure, or both” over the lifetime of the patient, according to Dr. Ference.

It also systematically overestimated the risk of cardiovascular events among participants with lower LDL-C, blood pressure, or both.

However, after embedding the causal effect of LDL and blood pressure, “the same algorithm was able to precisely predict the risk of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Ference said. The improved accuracy resulted in “nearly superimposable observed and predicted event curves over time.”
 

Embedded causal effects precisely predicts outcomes

Causal AI, embedded into risk analyses, was also able to correct for inaccurate risk benefit derived from short-term clinical trials. These also “systematically underestimate the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both,” according to Dr. Ference.

“By contrast, after embedding causal effects of LDL and blood pressure into the algorithm, the same algorithm precisely predicted the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both at every age, once again producing superimposable observed and predicted event curves.

In another evaluation conducted by Dr. Ference and coinvestigators, the JBS3 algorithm was applied to several major trials, such as the Heart Protection Trial and HOPE-3. By itself, the JBS3 algorithm predicted less benefit than actually observed.

“After embedding causal effects of LDL and blood pressure, the same algorithm was able to precisely predict the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both observed in the trials after 3-5 years,” Dr. Ference reported.

In a sensitivity analysis, the accuracy of the prediction remained largely similar across stratifications by risk factors, such as male sex, presence of diabetes, family history of cardiovascular disease, and other variables. It was also similar across participant age prior to a cardiovascular event and all durations of follow-up.

The data presented by Dr. Ference provides compelling evidence that JBS3, which is widely used in the United Kingdom for risk estimates, does not accurately estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease caused by elevated LDL or SBP. It also fails to estimate the benefit of treating these risk factors.

“Therefore, they cannot be used to determine the optimal timing, intensity, and duration of therapies to prevent cardiovascular events,” Dr. Ference said.

By embedding the causal effects of LDL-C and blood pressure through an AI-based algorithm, the benefit of treatment can be estimated accurately “beginning at any age and lasting for any duration, thus providing the essential information to inform individual treatment decisions about ultimate timing, intensity, and duration,” according to Dr. Ference.
 

Routine application awaits further steps

Despite the promise of this concept, there are many steps to be taken before it is introduced into the clinic, asserted designated discussant Folkert Asselbergs, MD, PhD. In addition to testing the accuracy in multiple populations, “we have to do the trials as well,” meaning prospective evaluations to validate the concept is meaningful for improving outcomes.

However, he does not doubt that the concept of causal AI is promising and likely to have a meaningful impact on cardiology after further validation.

“Causal AI is a crucial step that we need to take for more efficient health care,” he said. One reason he expressed caution is that several risk scores enhanced by AI, although not necessarily causal AI, have shown only “modest predictive value” in several studies that he cited.

“Hopefully the data presented from the CAUSAL AI study will really help us take a step up in the discussion to see how we can really benefit by including genetic information in an AI framework to include causality in predicting risk and predicting benefit of treatment,” said Dr. Asselbergs, professor of precision medicine, University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Asselbergs reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Typically, artificial intelligence (AI) is applied to analyze a complex set of variables to make correlations not readily made by unassisted observation. But an AI offshoot, sometimes referred to as causal AI, incorporates causation not just association, and it appears capable of changing the paradigm for preventing cardiovascular (CV) events.

“Causal AI is a new generation of AI algorithms that empowers AI to move beyond prediction to help guide clinical decision-making for each individual,” reported Brian A. Ference, MD, director of research in translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

In a novel study testing this premise, called CAUSAL AI, this approach was explored with two major risk factors, elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and elevated systolic BP (SBP). Based on a deep learning algorithm that studied the impact of these risk factors on the biology of atherosclerosis, causal effects of these risk factors were assessed and then embedded in risk estimation.
 

Causal AI can predict treatment effect

The study showed that the accuracy of risk prediction can be improved markedly with causal AI, but, more importantly, it suggests that causal AI can predict the impact of specific actions to reduce this risk in the context of the patient’s trajectory toward CV events.

“Risk-estimating algorithms are used to select patients at high risk who may benefit from interventions to reduce risk, but they do not include the causal effects of changes in LDL-C and SBP,” Dr. Ference explained.

As a result, they “may not accurately estimate the baseline risk of cardiovascular events caused by a person’s LDL-C or SBP level or the benefit of treating these risk factors,” he added.

In the CAUSAL AI study, presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, risk prediction embedded with causal AI demonstrated the ability to match predicted events with actual events in several large sets of patient data.

“Embedding causal effects into risk-estimating algorithms accurately estimates baseline cardiovascular risk caused by LDL and SBP and the benefit of lowering LDL, SBP, or both beginning at any age and extending for any duration,” Dr. Ference said.

Deep-learning AI evaluated more than 300 gene variants

The deep-learning AI was based on Mendelian randomization studies evaluating 140 gene variants associated with LDL-C and 202 variants associated with SBP.

In one test of the predictive impact of causal AI, risk prediction was first conducted in 445,771 participants in the UK Biobank with the Joint British Societies (JBS3) risk calculator. Relative to actual events in this population, the JBS3 alone “consistently underestimated the increased risk caused by elevated LDL, blood pressure, or both” over the lifetime of the patient, according to Dr. Ference.

It also systematically overestimated the risk of cardiovascular events among participants with lower LDL-C, blood pressure, or both.

However, after embedding the causal effect of LDL and blood pressure, “the same algorithm was able to precisely predict the risk of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Ference said. The improved accuracy resulted in “nearly superimposable observed and predicted event curves over time.”
 

Embedded causal effects precisely predicts outcomes

Causal AI, embedded into risk analyses, was also able to correct for inaccurate risk benefit derived from short-term clinical trials. These also “systematically underestimate the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both,” according to Dr. Ference.

“By contrast, after embedding causal effects of LDL and blood pressure into the algorithm, the same algorithm precisely predicted the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both at every age, once again producing superimposable observed and predicted event curves.

In another evaluation conducted by Dr. Ference and coinvestigators, the JBS3 algorithm was applied to several major trials, such as the Heart Protection Trial and HOPE-3. By itself, the JBS3 algorithm predicted less benefit than actually observed.

“After embedding causal effects of LDL and blood pressure, the same algorithm was able to precisely predict the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both observed in the trials after 3-5 years,” Dr. Ference reported.

In a sensitivity analysis, the accuracy of the prediction remained largely similar across stratifications by risk factors, such as male sex, presence of diabetes, family history of cardiovascular disease, and other variables. It was also similar across participant age prior to a cardiovascular event and all durations of follow-up.

The data presented by Dr. Ference provides compelling evidence that JBS3, which is widely used in the United Kingdom for risk estimates, does not accurately estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease caused by elevated LDL or SBP. It also fails to estimate the benefit of treating these risk factors.

“Therefore, they cannot be used to determine the optimal timing, intensity, and duration of therapies to prevent cardiovascular events,” Dr. Ference said.

By embedding the causal effects of LDL-C and blood pressure through an AI-based algorithm, the benefit of treatment can be estimated accurately “beginning at any age and lasting for any duration, thus providing the essential information to inform individual treatment decisions about ultimate timing, intensity, and duration,” according to Dr. Ference.
 

Routine application awaits further steps

Despite the promise of this concept, there are many steps to be taken before it is introduced into the clinic, asserted designated discussant Folkert Asselbergs, MD, PhD. In addition to testing the accuracy in multiple populations, “we have to do the trials as well,” meaning prospective evaluations to validate the concept is meaningful for improving outcomes.

However, he does not doubt that the concept of causal AI is promising and likely to have a meaningful impact on cardiology after further validation.

“Causal AI is a crucial step that we need to take for more efficient health care,” he said. One reason he expressed caution is that several risk scores enhanced by AI, although not necessarily causal AI, have shown only “modest predictive value” in several studies that he cited.

“Hopefully the data presented from the CAUSAL AI study will really help us take a step up in the discussion to see how we can really benefit by including genetic information in an AI framework to include causality in predicting risk and predicting benefit of treatment,” said Dr. Asselbergs, professor of precision medicine, University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Asselbergs reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Typically, artificial intelligence (AI) is applied to analyze a complex set of variables to make correlations not readily made by unassisted observation. But an AI offshoot, sometimes referred to as causal AI, incorporates causation not just association, and it appears capable of changing the paradigm for preventing cardiovascular (CV) events.

“Causal AI is a new generation of AI algorithms that empowers AI to move beyond prediction to help guide clinical decision-making for each individual,” reported Brian A. Ference, MD, director of research in translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).

In a novel study testing this premise, called CAUSAL AI, this approach was explored with two major risk factors, elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and elevated systolic BP (SBP). Based on a deep learning algorithm that studied the impact of these risk factors on the biology of atherosclerosis, causal effects of these risk factors were assessed and then embedded in risk estimation.
 

Causal AI can predict treatment effect

The study showed that the accuracy of risk prediction can be improved markedly with causal AI, but, more importantly, it suggests that causal AI can predict the impact of specific actions to reduce this risk in the context of the patient’s trajectory toward CV events.

“Risk-estimating algorithms are used to select patients at high risk who may benefit from interventions to reduce risk, but they do not include the causal effects of changes in LDL-C and SBP,” Dr. Ference explained.

As a result, they “may not accurately estimate the baseline risk of cardiovascular events caused by a person’s LDL-C or SBP level or the benefit of treating these risk factors,” he added.

In the CAUSAL AI study, presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, risk prediction embedded with causal AI demonstrated the ability to match predicted events with actual events in several large sets of patient data.

“Embedding causal effects into risk-estimating algorithms accurately estimates baseline cardiovascular risk caused by LDL and SBP and the benefit of lowering LDL, SBP, or both beginning at any age and extending for any duration,” Dr. Ference said.

Deep-learning AI evaluated more than 300 gene variants

The deep-learning AI was based on Mendelian randomization studies evaluating 140 gene variants associated with LDL-C and 202 variants associated with SBP.

In one test of the predictive impact of causal AI, risk prediction was first conducted in 445,771 participants in the UK Biobank with the Joint British Societies (JBS3) risk calculator. Relative to actual events in this population, the JBS3 alone “consistently underestimated the increased risk caused by elevated LDL, blood pressure, or both” over the lifetime of the patient, according to Dr. Ference.

It also systematically overestimated the risk of cardiovascular events among participants with lower LDL-C, blood pressure, or both.

However, after embedding the causal effect of LDL and blood pressure, “the same algorithm was able to precisely predict the risk of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Ference said. The improved accuracy resulted in “nearly superimposable observed and predicted event curves over time.”
 

Embedded causal effects precisely predicts outcomes

Causal AI, embedded into risk analyses, was also able to correct for inaccurate risk benefit derived from short-term clinical trials. These also “systematically underestimate the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both,” according to Dr. Ference.

“By contrast, after embedding causal effects of LDL and blood pressure into the algorithm, the same algorithm precisely predicted the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both at every age, once again producing superimposable observed and predicted event curves.

In another evaluation conducted by Dr. Ference and coinvestigators, the JBS3 algorithm was applied to several major trials, such as the Heart Protection Trial and HOPE-3. By itself, the JBS3 algorithm predicted less benefit than actually observed.

“After embedding causal effects of LDL and blood pressure, the same algorithm was able to precisely predict the benefit of lowering LDL, blood pressure, or both observed in the trials after 3-5 years,” Dr. Ference reported.

In a sensitivity analysis, the accuracy of the prediction remained largely similar across stratifications by risk factors, such as male sex, presence of diabetes, family history of cardiovascular disease, and other variables. It was also similar across participant age prior to a cardiovascular event and all durations of follow-up.

The data presented by Dr. Ference provides compelling evidence that JBS3, which is widely used in the United Kingdom for risk estimates, does not accurately estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease caused by elevated LDL or SBP. It also fails to estimate the benefit of treating these risk factors.

“Therefore, they cannot be used to determine the optimal timing, intensity, and duration of therapies to prevent cardiovascular events,” Dr. Ference said.

By embedding the causal effects of LDL-C and blood pressure through an AI-based algorithm, the benefit of treatment can be estimated accurately “beginning at any age and lasting for any duration, thus providing the essential information to inform individual treatment decisions about ultimate timing, intensity, and duration,” according to Dr. Ference.
 

Routine application awaits further steps

Despite the promise of this concept, there are many steps to be taken before it is introduced into the clinic, asserted designated discussant Folkert Asselbergs, MD, PhD. In addition to testing the accuracy in multiple populations, “we have to do the trials as well,” meaning prospective evaluations to validate the concept is meaningful for improving outcomes.

However, he does not doubt that the concept of causal AI is promising and likely to have a meaningful impact on cardiology after further validation.

“Causal AI is a crucial step that we need to take for more efficient health care,” he said. One reason he expressed caution is that several risk scores enhanced by AI, although not necessarily causal AI, have shown only “modest predictive value” in several studies that he cited.

“Hopefully the data presented from the CAUSAL AI study will really help us take a step up in the discussion to see how we can really benefit by including genetic information in an AI framework to include causality in predicting risk and predicting benefit of treatment,” said Dr. Asselbergs, professor of precision medicine, University of Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center.

Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Asselbergs reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• High-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes.

Why this matters

• The influence of furosemide on prognosis after cardiac surgery is not fully understood.
• The current findings suggest that high-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased risk for death and other adverse events and therefore should be used cautiously in that setting.

Study design

• The retrospective cohort of 6,752 cardiac surgery patients was divided into two groups according to average daily furosemide dosage after cardiac surgery: less than 20 mg (low-dose group, n = 6,033) and at least 20 mg (high-dose group, n = 719).
• The group were compared for total furosemide dose, total furosemide dose of at least 200 mg, total dose of furosemide by patient weight, and average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg.
• The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mortality at 1 year after cardiac surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
• The study excluded patients aged younger than 18 whose weight data was missing or who had more than 5% of their data missing.

Key results

• Patients in the high-dose furosemide group tended to be older and have a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher rates of diabetes, chronic pulmonary diseases, heart failure, renal failure, blood transfusion, vasopressor use, and valvular surgery.
• They also tended have higher white cell counts and higher levels of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glucose, and lactate.
• Those in the high-dose group also were on vasopressors and ventilatory support longer.
• In adjusted multivariate analysis, increased in-hospital mortality was associated with average daily furosemide dose, average daily dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• Increased mortality at 1 year was associated with total furosemide dose and average daily furosemide dose.
• Significant multivariate predictors of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours after cardiac surgery included total furosemide dose, total dose by weight, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• In subgroup analyses, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d significantly increased risk for in-hospital mortality among patients younger than 60 years or with BMI of at least 28 who received vasopressors or blood transfusions, those with renal failure, and those with heart failure not involving congestion.

Limitations

• No limitations were discussed.

Disclosures

• The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Jiangsu Postdoctoral Science Foundation.
• The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Association between furosemide administration and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” from Jinghang Li, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing (China) Medical University, and colleagues on published on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• High-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes.

Why this matters

• The influence of furosemide on prognosis after cardiac surgery is not fully understood.
• The current findings suggest that high-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased risk for death and other adverse events and therefore should be used cautiously in that setting.

Study design

• The retrospective cohort of 6,752 cardiac surgery patients was divided into two groups according to average daily furosemide dosage after cardiac surgery: less than 20 mg (low-dose group, n = 6,033) and at least 20 mg (high-dose group, n = 719).
• The group were compared for total furosemide dose, total furosemide dose of at least 200 mg, total dose of furosemide by patient weight, and average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg.
• The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mortality at 1 year after cardiac surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
• The study excluded patients aged younger than 18 whose weight data was missing or who had more than 5% of their data missing.

Key results

• Patients in the high-dose furosemide group tended to be older and have a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher rates of diabetes, chronic pulmonary diseases, heart failure, renal failure, blood transfusion, vasopressor use, and valvular surgery.
• They also tended have higher white cell counts and higher levels of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glucose, and lactate.
• Those in the high-dose group also were on vasopressors and ventilatory support longer.
• In adjusted multivariate analysis, increased in-hospital mortality was associated with average daily furosemide dose, average daily dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• Increased mortality at 1 year was associated with total furosemide dose and average daily furosemide dose.
• Significant multivariate predictors of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours after cardiac surgery included total furosemide dose, total dose by weight, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• In subgroup analyses, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d significantly increased risk for in-hospital mortality among patients younger than 60 years or with BMI of at least 28 who received vasopressors or blood transfusions, those with renal failure, and those with heart failure not involving congestion.

Limitations

• No limitations were discussed.

Disclosures

• The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Jiangsu Postdoctoral Science Foundation.
• The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Association between furosemide administration and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” from Jinghang Li, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing (China) Medical University, and colleagues on published on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• High-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes.

Why this matters

• The influence of furosemide on prognosis after cardiac surgery is not fully understood.
• The current findings suggest that high-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased risk for death and other adverse events and therefore should be used cautiously in that setting.

Study design

• The retrospective cohort of 6,752 cardiac surgery patients was divided into two groups according to average daily furosemide dosage after cardiac surgery: less than 20 mg (low-dose group, n = 6,033) and at least 20 mg (high-dose group, n = 719).
• The group were compared for total furosemide dose, total furosemide dose of at least 200 mg, total dose of furosemide by patient weight, and average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg.
• The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mortality at 1 year after cardiac surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
• The study excluded patients aged younger than 18 whose weight data was missing or who had more than 5% of their data missing.

Key results

• Patients in the high-dose furosemide group tended to be older and have a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher rates of diabetes, chronic pulmonary diseases, heart failure, renal failure, blood transfusion, vasopressor use, and valvular surgery.
• They also tended have higher white cell counts and higher levels of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glucose, and lactate.
• Those in the high-dose group also were on vasopressors and ventilatory support longer.
• In adjusted multivariate analysis, increased in-hospital mortality was associated with average daily furosemide dose, average daily dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• Increased mortality at 1 year was associated with total furosemide dose and average daily furosemide dose.
• Significant multivariate predictors of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours after cardiac surgery included total furosemide dose, total dose by weight, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• In subgroup analyses, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d significantly increased risk for in-hospital mortality among patients younger than 60 years or with BMI of at least 28 who received vasopressors or blood transfusions, those with renal failure, and those with heart failure not involving congestion.

Limitations

• No limitations were discussed.

Disclosures

• The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Jiangsu Postdoctoral Science Foundation.
• The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Association between furosemide administration and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” from Jinghang Li, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing (China) Medical University, and colleagues on published on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A multibiomarker risk score helps predict increased risk for future cardiovascular (CV) events as well as high-risk anatomy at revascularization in stable patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a FOURIER trial analysis suggests.

The risk score incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).

These routine biomarkers of inflammation and fibrosis, ventricular strain, and myocardial injury are individually associated with incident CV in stable ASCVD and were shown in earlier work to be a multimarker score to predict CV events in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome in the IMPROVE-IT trial.

Validating the score, however, wasn’t really the intent here, explained senior author Brian Bergmark, MD, with the TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“We know broadly speaking people with high troponin, BNP, et cetera, are going to have broadly defined clinical events like MIs [myocardial infarctions], death. And we also know on a granular level at a single time point that people who, for example, get a coronary CT scan and have a contemporary troponin level tend to have a little bit more coronary disease,” he said.

“But that leaves this broad swath of, what if we follow people over time? Can biomarkers in some form actually predict specific coronary anatomical characteristics and revascularization procedures in conjunction with clinical events?” Dr. Bergmark continued. “That’s sort of an untouched link or translational step between some of the granular data and these clinical events.”

As published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the post hoc study analyzed baseline blood samples from 21,644 FOURIER participants and adapted the previously studied multimarker score to use hsTnI in place of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT). One point was assigned for each elevated biomarker: hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L, NT-proBNP ≥ 450 pg/mL, hsTnI ≥ 6 ng/L, and GDF-15 ≥ 1,800 pg/mL.

A total of 6,444 patients had a low score (0 points), 12,439 an intermediate score (1-2 points), and 2,761 a high score (3-4 points). Patients with higher biomarker scores were older and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, multiple prior MIs, heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and peripheral artery disease but were less likely to have prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Results showed a stepwise increase in 3-year risk for major coronary events (coronary death, MI, or coronary revascularization) from 7.3% with a low score to 11.3% with an intermediate score and 21.0% with a high score. A near tripling of risk remained in those with a high score after adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.90).

Individuals with a high score had twice the risk for any coronary revascularization (HR, 2.10) and complex revascularization (HR, 2.07), as well as increased risks for complex PCI (HR, 1.80), CABG (HR, 2.57), and in-stent restenosis (ISR) revascularization (HR, 1.78).

The study is the first to show an association of these biomarkers with future ISR revascularization in a broad cohort of patients with stable ASCVD, the investigators observe.

It could be a random signal, but “it’s one piece of data as people start to look at other datasets, as we start to understand who’s at risk for ISR, as we understand this disease entity that’s really a pandemic at this point,” Dr. Bergmark said, “I think this is one piece of the puzzle that’s novel.”

Compared with those with a low score, patients with a high biomarker score had significantly higher risks for left main disease greater than 50% (HR, 2.22; P = .003), multivessel disease (HR, 1.99; P < .001), and chronic total occlusion (HR, 2.50; P < .001) at the time of revascularization.

There was no significant interaction between the biomarker score and the effect of evolocumab used in the trial; however, the assessment had limited statistical power, the authors note.

Dr. Bergmark said that the results can inform trial design to select a population at risk for specific types of events and when trying to risk adjust in a population for reimbursement purposes to understand quality metrics, for example, for people coming back with ISR.

“I think refining risk estimates has broad applicability clinically and academically,” he added. “This is one step, with one dataset, pushing these typically broad clinical endpoints to be more specific.”

In an related editorial, Giles Montalescot, MD, PhD, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, and colleagues write, “Not only does this study validate the multibiomarker score in a new cohort of patients and with new coronary-focused outcomes, but it also opens novel and interesting avenues, on a global approach of cardiovascular risk.”

Possibilities include using this or another multibiomarker risk score to streamline enrichment or selection criteria for a trial or as a surrogate endpoint in proof-of-concept trials to test a new drug aimed at reducing CV risk.

“Beyond clinical research, we could imagine in the future to base our therapeutic decisions on such a score, just like we decide anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation according to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,” the editorialists say.

This being said, Dr. Montalescot and colleagues point out that the current multibiomarker risk score assigned equal prognostic value to each of the components, whereas IMPROVE-IT and FOURIER both showed that elevated hsTnT and NT-proBNP were associated with much higher hazard ratios than hsCRP and GDF-15.

Other limitations, they say, are that the categorical nature of the variables, albeit user friendly, prevent any subtle analysis; the score does not include biological risk factors; and questions remain about the impact of the lipid-lowering intervention across risk categories.

FOURIER was funded by Amgen. The TIMI Study Group has received institutional grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr. Bergmark reports grant support from Pfizer, Ionis, AstraZeneca, and Abbott Vascular; and consulting fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, Servier, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Quark Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Montalescot reports research grants to his institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cell Prothera, CSL Behring, Europa, Idorsia, IRIS-Servier, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.

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

A multibiomarker risk score helps predict increased risk for future cardiovascular (CV) events as well as high-risk anatomy at revascularization in stable patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a FOURIER trial analysis suggests.

The risk score incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).

These routine biomarkers of inflammation and fibrosis, ventricular strain, and myocardial injury are individually associated with incident CV in stable ASCVD and were shown in earlier work to be a multimarker score to predict CV events in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome in the IMPROVE-IT trial.

Validating the score, however, wasn’t really the intent here, explained senior author Brian Bergmark, MD, with the TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“We know broadly speaking people with high troponin, BNP, et cetera, are going to have broadly defined clinical events like MIs [myocardial infarctions], death. And we also know on a granular level at a single time point that people who, for example, get a coronary CT scan and have a contemporary troponin level tend to have a little bit more coronary disease,” he said.

“But that leaves this broad swath of, what if we follow people over time? Can biomarkers in some form actually predict specific coronary anatomical characteristics and revascularization procedures in conjunction with clinical events?” Dr. Bergmark continued. “That’s sort of an untouched link or translational step between some of the granular data and these clinical events.”

As published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the post hoc study analyzed baseline blood samples from 21,644 FOURIER participants and adapted the previously studied multimarker score to use hsTnI in place of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT). One point was assigned for each elevated biomarker: hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L, NT-proBNP ≥ 450 pg/mL, hsTnI ≥ 6 ng/L, and GDF-15 ≥ 1,800 pg/mL.

A total of 6,444 patients had a low score (0 points), 12,439 an intermediate score (1-2 points), and 2,761 a high score (3-4 points). Patients with higher biomarker scores were older and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, multiple prior MIs, heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and peripheral artery disease but were less likely to have prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Results showed a stepwise increase in 3-year risk for major coronary events (coronary death, MI, or coronary revascularization) from 7.3% with a low score to 11.3% with an intermediate score and 21.0% with a high score. A near tripling of risk remained in those with a high score after adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.90).

Individuals with a high score had twice the risk for any coronary revascularization (HR, 2.10) and complex revascularization (HR, 2.07), as well as increased risks for complex PCI (HR, 1.80), CABG (HR, 2.57), and in-stent restenosis (ISR) revascularization (HR, 1.78).

The study is the first to show an association of these biomarkers with future ISR revascularization in a broad cohort of patients with stable ASCVD, the investigators observe.

It could be a random signal, but “it’s one piece of data as people start to look at other datasets, as we start to understand who’s at risk for ISR, as we understand this disease entity that’s really a pandemic at this point,” Dr. Bergmark said, “I think this is one piece of the puzzle that’s novel.”

Compared with those with a low score, patients with a high biomarker score had significantly higher risks for left main disease greater than 50% (HR, 2.22; P = .003), multivessel disease (HR, 1.99; P < .001), and chronic total occlusion (HR, 2.50; P < .001) at the time of revascularization.

There was no significant interaction between the biomarker score and the effect of evolocumab used in the trial; however, the assessment had limited statistical power, the authors note.

Dr. Bergmark said that the results can inform trial design to select a population at risk for specific types of events and when trying to risk adjust in a population for reimbursement purposes to understand quality metrics, for example, for people coming back with ISR.

“I think refining risk estimates has broad applicability clinically and academically,” he added. “This is one step, with one dataset, pushing these typically broad clinical endpoints to be more specific.”

In an related editorial, Giles Montalescot, MD, PhD, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, and colleagues write, “Not only does this study validate the multibiomarker score in a new cohort of patients and with new coronary-focused outcomes, but it also opens novel and interesting avenues, on a global approach of cardiovascular risk.”

Possibilities include using this or another multibiomarker risk score to streamline enrichment or selection criteria for a trial or as a surrogate endpoint in proof-of-concept trials to test a new drug aimed at reducing CV risk.

“Beyond clinical research, we could imagine in the future to base our therapeutic decisions on such a score, just like we decide anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation according to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,” the editorialists say.

This being said, Dr. Montalescot and colleagues point out that the current multibiomarker risk score assigned equal prognostic value to each of the components, whereas IMPROVE-IT and FOURIER both showed that elevated hsTnT and NT-proBNP were associated with much higher hazard ratios than hsCRP and GDF-15.

Other limitations, they say, are that the categorical nature of the variables, albeit user friendly, prevent any subtle analysis; the score does not include biological risk factors; and questions remain about the impact of the lipid-lowering intervention across risk categories.

FOURIER was funded by Amgen. The TIMI Study Group has received institutional grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr. Bergmark reports grant support from Pfizer, Ionis, AstraZeneca, and Abbott Vascular; and consulting fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, Servier, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Quark Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Montalescot reports research grants to his institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cell Prothera, CSL Behring, Europa, Idorsia, IRIS-Servier, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.

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

A multibiomarker risk score helps predict increased risk for future cardiovascular (CV) events as well as high-risk anatomy at revascularization in stable patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a FOURIER trial analysis suggests.

The risk score incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).

These routine biomarkers of inflammation and fibrosis, ventricular strain, and myocardial injury are individually associated with incident CV in stable ASCVD and were shown in earlier work to be a multimarker score to predict CV events in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome in the IMPROVE-IT trial.

Validating the score, however, wasn’t really the intent here, explained senior author Brian Bergmark, MD, with the TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“We know broadly speaking people with high troponin, BNP, et cetera, are going to have broadly defined clinical events like MIs [myocardial infarctions], death. And we also know on a granular level at a single time point that people who, for example, get a coronary CT scan and have a contemporary troponin level tend to have a little bit more coronary disease,” he said.

“But that leaves this broad swath of, what if we follow people over time? Can biomarkers in some form actually predict specific coronary anatomical characteristics and revascularization procedures in conjunction with clinical events?” Dr. Bergmark continued. “That’s sort of an untouched link or translational step between some of the granular data and these clinical events.”

As published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the post hoc study analyzed baseline blood samples from 21,644 FOURIER participants and adapted the previously studied multimarker score to use hsTnI in place of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT). One point was assigned for each elevated biomarker: hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L, NT-proBNP ≥ 450 pg/mL, hsTnI ≥ 6 ng/L, and GDF-15 ≥ 1,800 pg/mL.

A total of 6,444 patients had a low score (0 points), 12,439 an intermediate score (1-2 points), and 2,761 a high score (3-4 points). Patients with higher biomarker scores were older and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, multiple prior MIs, heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and peripheral artery disease but were less likely to have prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Results showed a stepwise increase in 3-year risk for major coronary events (coronary death, MI, or coronary revascularization) from 7.3% with a low score to 11.3% with an intermediate score and 21.0% with a high score. A near tripling of risk remained in those with a high score after adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.90).

Individuals with a high score had twice the risk for any coronary revascularization (HR, 2.10) and complex revascularization (HR, 2.07), as well as increased risks for complex PCI (HR, 1.80), CABG (HR, 2.57), and in-stent restenosis (ISR) revascularization (HR, 1.78).

The study is the first to show an association of these biomarkers with future ISR revascularization in a broad cohort of patients with stable ASCVD, the investigators observe.

It could be a random signal, but “it’s one piece of data as people start to look at other datasets, as we start to understand who’s at risk for ISR, as we understand this disease entity that’s really a pandemic at this point,” Dr. Bergmark said, “I think this is one piece of the puzzle that’s novel.”

Compared with those with a low score, patients with a high biomarker score had significantly higher risks for left main disease greater than 50% (HR, 2.22; P = .003), multivessel disease (HR, 1.99; P < .001), and chronic total occlusion (HR, 2.50; P < .001) at the time of revascularization.

There was no significant interaction between the biomarker score and the effect of evolocumab used in the trial; however, the assessment had limited statistical power, the authors note.

Dr. Bergmark said that the results can inform trial design to select a population at risk for specific types of events and when trying to risk adjust in a population for reimbursement purposes to understand quality metrics, for example, for people coming back with ISR.

“I think refining risk estimates has broad applicability clinically and academically,” he added. “This is one step, with one dataset, pushing these typically broad clinical endpoints to be more specific.”

In an related editorial, Giles Montalescot, MD, PhD, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, and colleagues write, “Not only does this study validate the multibiomarker score in a new cohort of patients and with new coronary-focused outcomes, but it also opens novel and interesting avenues, on a global approach of cardiovascular risk.”

Possibilities include using this or another multibiomarker risk score to streamline enrichment or selection criteria for a trial or as a surrogate endpoint in proof-of-concept trials to test a new drug aimed at reducing CV risk.

“Beyond clinical research, we could imagine in the future to base our therapeutic decisions on such a score, just like we decide anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation according to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,” the editorialists say.

This being said, Dr. Montalescot and colleagues point out that the current multibiomarker risk score assigned equal prognostic value to each of the components, whereas IMPROVE-IT and FOURIER both showed that elevated hsTnT and NT-proBNP were associated with much higher hazard ratios than hsCRP and GDF-15.

Other limitations, they say, are that the categorical nature of the variables, albeit user friendly, prevent any subtle analysis; the score does not include biological risk factors; and questions remain about the impact of the lipid-lowering intervention across risk categories.

FOURIER was funded by Amgen. The TIMI Study Group has received institutional grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr. Bergmark reports grant support from Pfizer, Ionis, AstraZeneca, and Abbott Vascular; and consulting fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, Servier, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Quark Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Montalescot reports research grants to his institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cell Prothera, CSL Behring, Europa, Idorsia, IRIS-Servier, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.

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

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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.