CAD & Atherosclerosis

Patients successfully resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who did not have ST-segment elevation on their electrocardiogram did not benefit from emergency coronary angiography in a new randomized clinical trial.

In the EMERGE trial, a strategy of emergency coronary angiography was not found to be better than a strategy of delayed coronary angiography with respect to the 180-day survival rate with no or minimal neurologic sequelae.

The authors note that, although the study was underpowered, the results are consistent with previously published studies and do not support routine emergency coronary angiography in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation.

But senior author, Christian Spaulding, MD, PhD, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, believes some such patients may still benefit from emergency angiography.

“Most patients who have been resuscitated after out of hospital cardiac arrest will have neurological damage, which will be the primary cause of death,” Dr. Spaulding told this news organization. “It will not make any difference to these patients if they have a coronary lesion treated. So, going forward, I think we need to look for patients who are likely not to have a high degree of neurological damage and who could still benefit from early angiography.”

The EMERGE study was published online  in JAMA Cardiology.

In patients who have suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no obvious noncardiac cause such as trauma, it is believed that the cardiac arrest is caused by coronary occlusions, and emergency angiography may be able to improve survival in these patients, Dr. Spaulding explained.

In about one-third of such patients, the ECG before hospitalization shows ST elevation, and in this group, there is a high probability (around 70%-80%) that there is going to be a coronary occlusion, so these patients are usually taken directly to emergency angiography.

But, in the other two-thirds of patients, there is no ST elevation on the ECG, and in these patients the chances of finding a coronary occlusion are lower (around 25%-35%).

The EMERGE trial was conducted in this latter group without ST elevation.

For the study, which was conducted in 22 French centers, 279 such patients (mean age, 64 years) were randomized to either emergency or delayed (48-96 hours) coronary angiography. The mean time delay between randomization and coronary angiography was 0.6 hours in the emergency group and 55.1 hours in the delayed group.

The primary outcome was the 180-day survival rate with minimal neurological damage, defined as Cerebral Performance Category of 2 or less. This occurred in 34.1% of the emergency angiography group and 30.7% of the delayed angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.15; P = .32).

There was also no difference in the overall survival rate at 180 days (36.2% vs. 33.3%; HR, 0.86; P = .31) and in secondary outcomes between the two groups.

Dr. Spaulding noted that three other randomized trials in a similar patient population have all shown similar results, with no difference in survival found between patients who have emergency coronary angiography as soon as they are admitted to hospital and those in whom angiography was not performed until a couple of days later.

However, several registry studies in a total of more than 6,000 patients have suggested a benefit of immediate angiography in these patients. “So, there is some disconnect here,” he said.

Dr. Spaulding believes the reason for this disconnect may be that the registry studies may have included patients with less neurological damage so more likely to survive and to benefit from having coronary lesions treated promptly.

“Paramedics sometimes make a judgment on which patients may have minimal neurological damage, and this may affect the choice of hospital a patient is taken to, and then the emergency department doctor may again assess whether a patient should go for immediate angiography or not. So, patients in these registry studies who received emergency angiography were likely already preselected to some extent,” he suggested.

In contrast, the randomized trials have accepted all patients, so there were probably more with neurological damage. “In our trial, almost 70% of patients were in asystole. These are the ones who [are] the most likely to have neurological damage,” he pointed out.

“Because there was such a striking difference in the registry studies, I think there is a group of patients [who] will benefit from immediate emergency coronary angiography, but we have to work out how to select these patients,” he commented.

Dr. Spaulding noted that a recent registry study published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions used a score known as MIRACLE2, (which takes into account various factors including age of patient and type of rhythm on ECG) and the degree of cardiogenic shock on arrival at hospital as measured by the SCAI shock score to define a potential cohort of patients at low risk for neurologic injury who benefit most from immediate coronary angiography.

“In my practice at present, I would advise the emergency team that a young patient who had had resuscitation started quickly, had been defibrillated early, and got to hospital quickly should go for an immediate coronary angiogram. It can’t do any harm, and there may be a benefit in such patients,” Dr. Spaulding added.The EMERGE study was supported in part by Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris and the French Ministry of Health, through the national Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique. Dr. Spaulding reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients successfully resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who did not have ST-segment elevation on their electrocardiogram did not benefit from emergency coronary angiography in a new randomized clinical trial.

In the EMERGE trial, a strategy of emergency coronary angiography was not found to be better than a strategy of delayed coronary angiography with respect to the 180-day survival rate with no or minimal neurologic sequelae.

The authors note that, although the study was underpowered, the results are consistent with previously published studies and do not support routine emergency coronary angiography in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation.

But senior author, Christian Spaulding, MD, PhD, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, believes some such patients may still benefit from emergency angiography.

“Most patients who have been resuscitated after out of hospital cardiac arrest will have neurological damage, which will be the primary cause of death,” Dr. Spaulding told this news organization. “It will not make any difference to these patients if they have a coronary lesion treated. So, going forward, I think we need to look for patients who are likely not to have a high degree of neurological damage and who could still benefit from early angiography.”

The EMERGE study was published online  in JAMA Cardiology.

In patients who have suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no obvious noncardiac cause such as trauma, it is believed that the cardiac arrest is caused by coronary occlusions, and emergency angiography may be able to improve survival in these patients, Dr. Spaulding explained.

In about one-third of such patients, the ECG before hospitalization shows ST elevation, and in this group, there is a high probability (around 70%-80%) that there is going to be a coronary occlusion, so these patients are usually taken directly to emergency angiography.

But, in the other two-thirds of patients, there is no ST elevation on the ECG, and in these patients the chances of finding a coronary occlusion are lower (around 25%-35%).

The EMERGE trial was conducted in this latter group without ST elevation.

For the study, which was conducted in 22 French centers, 279 such patients (mean age, 64 years) were randomized to either emergency or delayed (48-96 hours) coronary angiography. The mean time delay between randomization and coronary angiography was 0.6 hours in the emergency group and 55.1 hours in the delayed group.

The primary outcome was the 180-day survival rate with minimal neurological damage, defined as Cerebral Performance Category of 2 or less. This occurred in 34.1% of the emergency angiography group and 30.7% of the delayed angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.15; P = .32).

There was also no difference in the overall survival rate at 180 days (36.2% vs. 33.3%; HR, 0.86; P = .31) and in secondary outcomes between the two groups.

Dr. Spaulding noted that three other randomized trials in a similar patient population have all shown similar results, with no difference in survival found between patients who have emergency coronary angiography as soon as they are admitted to hospital and those in whom angiography was not performed until a couple of days later.

However, several registry studies in a total of more than 6,000 patients have suggested a benefit of immediate angiography in these patients. “So, there is some disconnect here,” he said.

Dr. Spaulding believes the reason for this disconnect may be that the registry studies may have included patients with less neurological damage so more likely to survive and to benefit from having coronary lesions treated promptly.

“Paramedics sometimes make a judgment on which patients may have minimal neurological damage, and this may affect the choice of hospital a patient is taken to, and then the emergency department doctor may again assess whether a patient should go for immediate angiography or not. So, patients in these registry studies who received emergency angiography were likely already preselected to some extent,” he suggested.

In contrast, the randomized trials have accepted all patients, so there were probably more with neurological damage. “In our trial, almost 70% of patients were in asystole. These are the ones who [are] the most likely to have neurological damage,” he pointed out.

“Because there was such a striking difference in the registry studies, I think there is a group of patients [who] will benefit from immediate emergency coronary angiography, but we have to work out how to select these patients,” he commented.

Dr. Spaulding noted that a recent registry study published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions used a score known as MIRACLE2, (which takes into account various factors including age of patient and type of rhythm on ECG) and the degree of cardiogenic shock on arrival at hospital as measured by the SCAI shock score to define a potential cohort of patients at low risk for neurologic injury who benefit most from immediate coronary angiography.

“In my practice at present, I would advise the emergency team that a young patient who had had resuscitation started quickly, had been defibrillated early, and got to hospital quickly should go for an immediate coronary angiogram. It can’t do any harm, and there may be a benefit in such patients,” Dr. Spaulding added.The EMERGE study was supported in part by Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris and the French Ministry of Health, through the national Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique. Dr. Spaulding reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients successfully resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who did not have ST-segment elevation on their electrocardiogram did not benefit from emergency coronary angiography in a new randomized clinical trial.

In the EMERGE trial, a strategy of emergency coronary angiography was not found to be better than a strategy of delayed coronary angiography with respect to the 180-day survival rate with no or minimal neurologic sequelae.

The authors note that, although the study was underpowered, the results are consistent with previously published studies and do not support routine emergency coronary angiography in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation.

But senior author, Christian Spaulding, MD, PhD, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, believes some such patients may still benefit from emergency angiography.

“Most patients who have been resuscitated after out of hospital cardiac arrest will have neurological damage, which will be the primary cause of death,” Dr. Spaulding told this news organization. “It will not make any difference to these patients if they have a coronary lesion treated. So, going forward, I think we need to look for patients who are likely not to have a high degree of neurological damage and who could still benefit from early angiography.”

The EMERGE study was published online  in JAMA Cardiology.

In patients who have suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no obvious noncardiac cause such as trauma, it is believed that the cardiac arrest is caused by coronary occlusions, and emergency angiography may be able to improve survival in these patients, Dr. Spaulding explained.

In about one-third of such patients, the ECG before hospitalization shows ST elevation, and in this group, there is a high probability (around 70%-80%) that there is going to be a coronary occlusion, so these patients are usually taken directly to emergency angiography.

But, in the other two-thirds of patients, there is no ST elevation on the ECG, and in these patients the chances of finding a coronary occlusion are lower (around 25%-35%).

The EMERGE trial was conducted in this latter group without ST elevation.

For the study, which was conducted in 22 French centers, 279 such patients (mean age, 64 years) were randomized to either emergency or delayed (48-96 hours) coronary angiography. The mean time delay between randomization and coronary angiography was 0.6 hours in the emergency group and 55.1 hours in the delayed group.

The primary outcome was the 180-day survival rate with minimal neurological damage, defined as Cerebral Performance Category of 2 or less. This occurred in 34.1% of the emergency angiography group and 30.7% of the delayed angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.15; P = .32).

There was also no difference in the overall survival rate at 180 days (36.2% vs. 33.3%; HR, 0.86; P = .31) and in secondary outcomes between the two groups.

Dr. Spaulding noted that three other randomized trials in a similar patient population have all shown similar results, with no difference in survival found between patients who have emergency coronary angiography as soon as they are admitted to hospital and those in whom angiography was not performed until a couple of days later.

However, several registry studies in a total of more than 6,000 patients have suggested a benefit of immediate angiography in these patients. “So, there is some disconnect here,” he said.

Dr. Spaulding believes the reason for this disconnect may be that the registry studies may have included patients with less neurological damage so more likely to survive and to benefit from having coronary lesions treated promptly.

“Paramedics sometimes make a judgment on which patients may have minimal neurological damage, and this may affect the choice of hospital a patient is taken to, and then the emergency department doctor may again assess whether a patient should go for immediate angiography or not. So, patients in these registry studies who received emergency angiography were likely already preselected to some extent,” he suggested.

In contrast, the randomized trials have accepted all patients, so there were probably more with neurological damage. “In our trial, almost 70% of patients were in asystole. These are the ones who [are] the most likely to have neurological damage,” he pointed out.

“Because there was such a striking difference in the registry studies, I think there is a group of patients [who] will benefit from immediate emergency coronary angiography, but we have to work out how to select these patients,” he commented.

Dr. Spaulding noted that a recent registry study published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions used a score known as MIRACLE2, (which takes into account various factors including age of patient and type of rhythm on ECG) and the degree of cardiogenic shock on arrival at hospital as measured by the SCAI shock score to define a potential cohort of patients at low risk for neurologic injury who benefit most from immediate coronary angiography.

“In my practice at present, I would advise the emergency team that a young patient who had had resuscitation started quickly, had been defibrillated early, and got to hospital quickly should go for an immediate coronary angiogram. It can’t do any harm, and there may be a benefit in such patients,” Dr. Spaulding added.The EMERGE study was supported in part by Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris and the French Ministry of Health, through the national Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique. Dr. Spaulding reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite a new meta-analysis claiming to show that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk of cardiovascular outcomes such as myocardial infarction or stroke, experts say the jury is still out.

A more definitive answer for cardiovascular safety of testosterone therapy will come from the TRAVERSE dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, sponsored by AbbVie, which will have up to 5 years of follow-up, with results expected later this year.

The current meta-analysis by Jemma Hudson of Aberdeen (Scotland) University and colleagues was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The work will also be presented June 13 at ENDO 2022, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, by senior author Channa Y. Jayasena, MD, PhD.

In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated a label on testosterone products warning of possible increased cardiovascular risks and to reserve the therapy for symptomatic hypogonadism only. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency concluded that when hypogonadism is properly diagnosed and managed, there is currently no clear, consistent evidence that testosterone therapy causes increased cardiovascular risk.

To address this uncertainty, Dr. Hudson and colleagues formed a global collaborative to obtain individual patient data on cardiovascular outcomes from randomized controlled trials of testosterone therapy for men with hypogonadism.

They pooled data from 35 trials published from 1992 to Aug. 27, 2018, including 17 trials (3,431 patients) for which the researchers obtained patient-level data. The individual trials were 3-12 months long, except for one 3-year trial.

During a mean follow-up of 9.5 months, there was no significant increase in cardiovascular outcomes in men randomized to testosterone therapy versus placebo (odds ratio, 1.07; P = .62), nor were there any significantly increased risks of death, stroke, or different types of cardiovascular outcome, although those numbers were small.  

This is “the most comprehensive study to date investigating the safety of testosterone treatment of hypogonadism,” according to the researchers. “The current results provide some reassurance about the short-term to medium-term safety of testosterone to treat male hypogonadism,” they conclude.

However, they also acknowledge that “long-term data are needed to fully evaluate the safety of testosterone.”

Erin D. Michos, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, told this news organization, “This study doesn’t say to me that low testosterone necessarily needs to be treated. It’s still not indicated in people just for a low number [for blood testosterone] with less-severe symptoms. It really comes down to each individual person, how symptomatic they are, and their cardiovascular risk.”

‘Trial is not definitive’

Dr. Michos is not the only person to be skeptical. Together with Steven Nissen, MD, an investigator for the TRAVERSE trial, she agrees that this new evidence is not yet decisive, largely because the individual trials in the meta-analysis were short and not designed as cardiovascular outcome trials.

Dr. Nissen, a cardiologist at Cleveland Clinic, added that the individual trials were heterogeneous, with “very few real cardiovascular events,” so the meta-analysis “is not definitive,” he said in an interview.

While this meta-analysis “that pooled together a lot of smaller studies is reassuring that there’s no signal of harm, it’s really inconclusive because the follow-up was really short – a mean of only 9.5 months – and you really need a larger study with longer follow up to be more conclusive,” Dr. Michos noted.

“We should have more data soon” from TRAVERSE, said Dr. Michos, from the division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who is not involved with that study.

Meanwhile, “I don’t think [this analysis] changes the current recommendations,” she said.

“We should continue to use caution as indicated by the FDA label and only use testosterone therapy selectively in people who have true symptoms of hypogonadism,” and be cautious about using it particularly in men at higher cardiovascular risk because of family history or known personal heart disease.

On the other hand, the meta-analysis did not show harm, she noted, “so we don’t necessarily need to pull patients off therapy if they are already taking it. But I wouldn’t right now just start new patients on it unless they had a strong indication.”

“Certainly, great caution is advised regarding the use of testosterone replacement therapy in people with established atherosclerosis due to the findings of plaque progression in the testosterone trials and the excess cardiovascular events observed in the TOM trial, write Dr. Michos and fellow editorialist Matthew J. Budoff, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, in their editorial.
 

Earlier data inconclusive

Testosterone concentrations progressively decline in men with advancing age, at about 2% per year, Dr. Michos and Dr. Budoff write. In addition, men with obesity or with diabetes have low levels of testosterone, Dr. Michos noted.

Low testosterone blood levels have been associated with insulin resistance, inflammation, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerosis. Testosterone replacement therapy has been used to increase libido, improve erectile dysfunction, and boost energy levels, mood, and muscle strength.

But it is well known that testosterone increases hematocrit, which has the potential to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.

Two large observational studies have reported increased risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in men taking testosterone, compared with nonusers, but the study designs have been widely criticized, Dr. Hudson and coauthors say in their article.  

A placebo-controlled trial was stopped early by its data- and safety-monitoring board following increased cardiovascular events in men aged 65 and older who received 6 months of testosterone. Other controlled trials have not observed these effects, but none was sufficiently powered.
 

Meta-analysis results

Dr. Hudson and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 35 trials in 5,601 men aged 18 years and older with low baseline testosterone (≤ 350 nmol/dL) who had been randomized to testosterone replacement therapy or placebo for at least 3 months, for which there were data on mortality, stroke, and cardiovascular outcomes.

The men were a mean age of 65, had a mean body mass index of 30 kg/m², and most (88%) were White. A quarter had angina, 8% had a previous myocardial infarction, and 27% had diabetes. 

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes were not primary outcomes.

During a mean follow-up of 9.5 months, in the 13 trials that provided this information, the rate of cardiovascular events was similar in the men who received testosterone (120/1,601, 7.5%) compared with those who received placebo (110/1,519, 7.2%).

In the 14 trials that provided this information, fewer deaths were reported during testosterone treatment (6/1,621, 0.4%) than during placebo treatment (12/1,537, 0.8%), but these numbers were too small to establish whether testosterone reduced mortality risk.

The most common cardiovascular events were arrhythmia, followed by coronary heart disease, heart failure, and myocardial infarction.

Patient age, baseline testosterone, smoking status, or diabetes status were not associated with cardiovascular risk.

The only detected adverse effects were edema and a modest lowering of HDL cholesterol.

“Men who develop sexual dysfunction, unexplained anemia, or osteoporosis should be tested for low testosterone,” senior author of the meta-analysis Dr. Jayasena said in an email to this news organization.

However, Dr. Jayasena added, “Mass screening for testosterone has no benefit in asymptomatic men.”

“Older men may still benefit from testosterone, but only if they have the clinical features [of hypogonadism] and low testosterone levels,” he concluded.  

The current study is supported by the Health Technology Assessment program of the National Institute for Health Research. The TRAVERSE trial is sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Jayasena has reported receiving research grants from LogixX Pharma. Dr. Hudson has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Michos has reported receiving support from the Amato Fund in Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and serving on medical advisory boards for Novartis, Esperion, Amarin, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Budoff has reported receiving grant support from General Electric.
 

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

Despite a new meta-analysis claiming to show that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk of cardiovascular outcomes such as myocardial infarction or stroke, experts say the jury is still out.

A more definitive answer for cardiovascular safety of testosterone therapy will come from the TRAVERSE dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, sponsored by AbbVie, which will have up to 5 years of follow-up, with results expected later this year.

The current meta-analysis by Jemma Hudson of Aberdeen (Scotland) University and colleagues was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The work will also be presented June 13 at ENDO 2022, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, by senior author Channa Y. Jayasena, MD, PhD.

In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated a label on testosterone products warning of possible increased cardiovascular risks and to reserve the therapy for symptomatic hypogonadism only. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency concluded that when hypogonadism is properly diagnosed and managed, there is currently no clear, consistent evidence that testosterone therapy causes increased cardiovascular risk.

To address this uncertainty, Dr. Hudson and colleagues formed a global collaborative to obtain individual patient data on cardiovascular outcomes from randomized controlled trials of testosterone therapy for men with hypogonadism.

They pooled data from 35 trials published from 1992 to Aug. 27, 2018, including 17 trials (3,431 patients) for which the researchers obtained patient-level data. The individual trials were 3-12 months long, except for one 3-year trial.

During a mean follow-up of 9.5 months, there was no significant increase in cardiovascular outcomes in men randomized to testosterone therapy versus placebo (odds ratio, 1.07; P = .62), nor were there any significantly increased risks of death, stroke, or different types of cardiovascular outcome, although those numbers were small.  

This is “the most comprehensive study to date investigating the safety of testosterone treatment of hypogonadism,” according to the researchers. “The current results provide some reassurance about the short-term to medium-term safety of testosterone to treat male hypogonadism,” they conclude.

However, they also acknowledge that “long-term data are needed to fully evaluate the safety of testosterone.”

Erin D. Michos, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, told this news organization, “This study doesn’t say to me that low testosterone necessarily needs to be treated. It’s still not indicated in people just for a low number [for blood testosterone] with less-severe symptoms. It really comes down to each individual person, how symptomatic they are, and their cardiovascular risk.”

‘Trial is not definitive’

Dr. Michos is not the only person to be skeptical. Together with Steven Nissen, MD, an investigator for the TRAVERSE trial, she agrees that this new evidence is not yet decisive, largely because the individual trials in the meta-analysis were short and not designed as cardiovascular outcome trials.

Dr. Nissen, a cardiologist at Cleveland Clinic, added that the individual trials were heterogeneous, with “very few real cardiovascular events,” so the meta-analysis “is not definitive,” he said in an interview.

While this meta-analysis “that pooled together a lot of smaller studies is reassuring that there’s no signal of harm, it’s really inconclusive because the follow-up was really short – a mean of only 9.5 months – and you really need a larger study with longer follow up to be more conclusive,” Dr. Michos noted.

“We should have more data soon” from TRAVERSE, said Dr. Michos, from the division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who is not involved with that study.

Meanwhile, “I don’t think [this analysis] changes the current recommendations,” she said.

“We should continue to use caution as indicated by the FDA label and only use testosterone therapy selectively in people who have true symptoms of hypogonadism,” and be cautious about using it particularly in men at higher cardiovascular risk because of family history or known personal heart disease.

On the other hand, the meta-analysis did not show harm, she noted, “so we don’t necessarily need to pull patients off therapy if they are already taking it. But I wouldn’t right now just start new patients on it unless they had a strong indication.”

“Certainly, great caution is advised regarding the use of testosterone replacement therapy in people with established atherosclerosis due to the findings of plaque progression in the testosterone trials and the excess cardiovascular events observed in the TOM trial, write Dr. Michos and fellow editorialist Matthew J. Budoff, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, in their editorial.
 

Earlier data inconclusive

Testosterone concentrations progressively decline in men with advancing age, at about 2% per year, Dr. Michos and Dr. Budoff write. In addition, men with obesity or with diabetes have low levels of testosterone, Dr. Michos noted.

Low testosterone blood levels have been associated with insulin resistance, inflammation, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerosis. Testosterone replacement therapy has been used to increase libido, improve erectile dysfunction, and boost energy levels, mood, and muscle strength.

But it is well known that testosterone increases hematocrit, which has the potential to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.

Two large observational studies have reported increased risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in men taking testosterone, compared with nonusers, but the study designs have been widely criticized, Dr. Hudson and coauthors say in their article.  

A placebo-controlled trial was stopped early by its data- and safety-monitoring board following increased cardiovascular events in men aged 65 and older who received 6 months of testosterone. Other controlled trials have not observed these effects, but none was sufficiently powered.
 

Meta-analysis results

Dr. Hudson and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 35 trials in 5,601 men aged 18 years and older with low baseline testosterone (≤ 350 nmol/dL) who had been randomized to testosterone replacement therapy or placebo for at least 3 months, for which there were data on mortality, stroke, and cardiovascular outcomes.

The men were a mean age of 65, had a mean body mass index of 30 kg/m², and most (88%) were White. A quarter had angina, 8% had a previous myocardial infarction, and 27% had diabetes. 

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes were not primary outcomes.

During a mean follow-up of 9.5 months, in the 13 trials that provided this information, the rate of cardiovascular events was similar in the men who received testosterone (120/1,601, 7.5%) compared with those who received placebo (110/1,519, 7.2%).

In the 14 trials that provided this information, fewer deaths were reported during testosterone treatment (6/1,621, 0.4%) than during placebo treatment (12/1,537, 0.8%), but these numbers were too small to establish whether testosterone reduced mortality risk.

The most common cardiovascular events were arrhythmia, followed by coronary heart disease, heart failure, and myocardial infarction.

Patient age, baseline testosterone, smoking status, or diabetes status were not associated with cardiovascular risk.

The only detected adverse effects were edema and a modest lowering of HDL cholesterol.

“Men who develop sexual dysfunction, unexplained anemia, or osteoporosis should be tested for low testosterone,” senior author of the meta-analysis Dr. Jayasena said in an email to this news organization.

However, Dr. Jayasena added, “Mass screening for testosterone has no benefit in asymptomatic men.”

“Older men may still benefit from testosterone, but only if they have the clinical features [of hypogonadism] and low testosterone levels,” he concluded.  

The current study is supported by the Health Technology Assessment program of the National Institute for Health Research. The TRAVERSE trial is sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Jayasena has reported receiving research grants from LogixX Pharma. Dr. Hudson has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Michos has reported receiving support from the Amato Fund in Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and serving on medical advisory boards for Novartis, Esperion, Amarin, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Budoff has reported receiving grant support from General Electric.
 

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

Despite a new meta-analysis claiming to show that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk of cardiovascular outcomes such as myocardial infarction or stroke, experts say the jury is still out.

A more definitive answer for cardiovascular safety of testosterone therapy will come from the TRAVERSE dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, sponsored by AbbVie, which will have up to 5 years of follow-up, with results expected later this year.

The current meta-analysis by Jemma Hudson of Aberdeen (Scotland) University and colleagues was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The work will also be presented June 13 at ENDO 2022, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, by senior author Channa Y. Jayasena, MD, PhD.

In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated a label on testosterone products warning of possible increased cardiovascular risks and to reserve the therapy for symptomatic hypogonadism only. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency concluded that when hypogonadism is properly diagnosed and managed, there is currently no clear, consistent evidence that testosterone therapy causes increased cardiovascular risk.

To address this uncertainty, Dr. Hudson and colleagues formed a global collaborative to obtain individual patient data on cardiovascular outcomes from randomized controlled trials of testosterone therapy for men with hypogonadism.

They pooled data from 35 trials published from 1992 to Aug. 27, 2018, including 17 trials (3,431 patients) for which the researchers obtained patient-level data. The individual trials were 3-12 months long, except for one 3-year trial.

During a mean follow-up of 9.5 months, there was no significant increase in cardiovascular outcomes in men randomized to testosterone therapy versus placebo (odds ratio, 1.07; P = .62), nor were there any significantly increased risks of death, stroke, or different types of cardiovascular outcome, although those numbers were small.  

This is “the most comprehensive study to date investigating the safety of testosterone treatment of hypogonadism,” according to the researchers. “The current results provide some reassurance about the short-term to medium-term safety of testosterone to treat male hypogonadism,” they conclude.

However, they also acknowledge that “long-term data are needed to fully evaluate the safety of testosterone.”

Erin D. Michos, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, told this news organization, “This study doesn’t say to me that low testosterone necessarily needs to be treated. It’s still not indicated in people just for a low number [for blood testosterone] with less-severe symptoms. It really comes down to each individual person, how symptomatic they are, and their cardiovascular risk.”

‘Trial is not definitive’

Dr. Michos is not the only person to be skeptical. Together with Steven Nissen, MD, an investigator for the TRAVERSE trial, she agrees that this new evidence is not yet decisive, largely because the individual trials in the meta-analysis were short and not designed as cardiovascular outcome trials.

Dr. Nissen, a cardiologist at Cleveland Clinic, added that the individual trials were heterogeneous, with “very few real cardiovascular events,” so the meta-analysis “is not definitive,” he said in an interview.

While this meta-analysis “that pooled together a lot of smaller studies is reassuring that there’s no signal of harm, it’s really inconclusive because the follow-up was really short – a mean of only 9.5 months – and you really need a larger study with longer follow up to be more conclusive,” Dr. Michos noted.

“We should have more data soon” from TRAVERSE, said Dr. Michos, from the division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who is not involved with that study.

Meanwhile, “I don’t think [this analysis] changes the current recommendations,” she said.

“We should continue to use caution as indicated by the FDA label and only use testosterone therapy selectively in people who have true symptoms of hypogonadism,” and be cautious about using it particularly in men at higher cardiovascular risk because of family history or known personal heart disease.

On the other hand, the meta-analysis did not show harm, she noted, “so we don’t necessarily need to pull patients off therapy if they are already taking it. But I wouldn’t right now just start new patients on it unless they had a strong indication.”

“Certainly, great caution is advised regarding the use of testosterone replacement therapy in people with established atherosclerosis due to the findings of plaque progression in the testosterone trials and the excess cardiovascular events observed in the TOM trial, write Dr. Michos and fellow editorialist Matthew J. Budoff, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, in their editorial.
 

Earlier data inconclusive

Testosterone concentrations progressively decline in men with advancing age, at about 2% per year, Dr. Michos and Dr. Budoff write. In addition, men with obesity or with diabetes have low levels of testosterone, Dr. Michos noted.

Low testosterone blood levels have been associated with insulin resistance, inflammation, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerosis. Testosterone replacement therapy has been used to increase libido, improve erectile dysfunction, and boost energy levels, mood, and muscle strength.

But it is well known that testosterone increases hematocrit, which has the potential to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.

Two large observational studies have reported increased risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in men taking testosterone, compared with nonusers, but the study designs have been widely criticized, Dr. Hudson and coauthors say in their article.  

A placebo-controlled trial was stopped early by its data- and safety-monitoring board following increased cardiovascular events in men aged 65 and older who received 6 months of testosterone. Other controlled trials have not observed these effects, but none was sufficiently powered.
 

Meta-analysis results

Dr. Hudson and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 35 trials in 5,601 men aged 18 years and older with low baseline testosterone (≤ 350 nmol/dL) who had been randomized to testosterone replacement therapy or placebo for at least 3 months, for which there were data on mortality, stroke, and cardiovascular outcomes.

The men were a mean age of 65, had a mean body mass index of 30 kg/m², and most (88%) were White. A quarter had angina, 8% had a previous myocardial infarction, and 27% had diabetes. 

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes were not primary outcomes.

During a mean follow-up of 9.5 months, in the 13 trials that provided this information, the rate of cardiovascular events was similar in the men who received testosterone (120/1,601, 7.5%) compared with those who received placebo (110/1,519, 7.2%).

In the 14 trials that provided this information, fewer deaths were reported during testosterone treatment (6/1,621, 0.4%) than during placebo treatment (12/1,537, 0.8%), but these numbers were too small to establish whether testosterone reduced mortality risk.

The most common cardiovascular events were arrhythmia, followed by coronary heart disease, heart failure, and myocardial infarction.

Patient age, baseline testosterone, smoking status, or diabetes status were not associated with cardiovascular risk.

The only detected adverse effects were edema and a modest lowering of HDL cholesterol.

“Men who develop sexual dysfunction, unexplained anemia, or osteoporosis should be tested for low testosterone,” senior author of the meta-analysis Dr. Jayasena said in an email to this news organization.

However, Dr. Jayasena added, “Mass screening for testosterone has no benefit in asymptomatic men.”

“Older men may still benefit from testosterone, but only if they have the clinical features [of hypogonadism] and low testosterone levels,” he concluded.  

The current study is supported by the Health Technology Assessment program of the National Institute for Health Research. The TRAVERSE trial is sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Jayasena has reported receiving research grants from LogixX Pharma. Dr. Hudson has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Michos has reported receiving support from the Amato Fund in Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and serving on medical advisory boards for Novartis, Esperion, Amarin, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Budoff has reported receiving grant support from General Electric.
 

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

MILAN, Italy – The antisense oligonucleotide vupanorsen substantially reduces very-low-density-lipoprotein (VLDL) and remnant cholesterol levels in patients with raised lipids despite statin therapy, suggests a subanalysis of TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 that appears to offer more hope than the primary study findings.

Vupanorsen targets hepatic angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3), which inhibits enzymes involved in triglyceride and cholesterol metabolism.

Earlier this year, headline data from TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 suggested that the drug reduced triglycerides and non–high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol to a degree that was significant but not clinically meaningful for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Moreover, as reported by this news organization, there were safety concerns over increases in liver enzymes among patients taking the drug, as well as dose-related increases in hepatic fat.

As a result, Pfizer announced that it would discontinue its clinical development program for vupanorsen and return the development rights to Ionis, following the signing of a worldwide exclusive agreement in November 2019.

Now, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, MPH, cardiovascular medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, has presented a post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b study, showing that the drug reduces VLDL and remnant cholesterol levels by up to 60%.

These were closely tied to reductions in ANGPTL3 levels, although substantial reductions in cholesterol levels were achieved even at less than maximal reductions in ANGPTL3, where the impact on safety outcomes was reduced.

Dr. Marston said that lower doses of vupanorsen, where the safety effects would be less, or other drugs that inhibit ANGPTL3, “may have an important role in patients with residual dyslipidemia despite current therapy.”

The results were presented at the 90th European Atherosclerosis Society Congress on May 23.

Dr. Marston told this news organization that some of the reductions they saw with the lower doses of vupanorsen were “just as good as any other therapy, and the safety profile was … much better than at the highest dose.”

They wanted to pursue the subgroup analysis, despite Pfizer’s announcement, partly to “learn something in terms of the potential efficacy of the ANGPTL3 pathway in general.”

Dr. Marston said that Ionis is now focused on ANGPTL3, and the current results suggest that it “works very well,” so if other drugs are able to achieve the same efficacy as vupanorsen “but without the effects,” then it may “get elbowed out.”

Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, PhD, of Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, who was not involved in the study, called the findings “very encouraging.”

He told this news organization that being able to reduce LDL cholesterol as well as VLDL and remnant cholesterol is “exactly what I would be dreaming about” with a drug like vupanorsen.

Dr. Nordestgaard nevertheless underlined that “one would have to look carefully” at the safety of the drug.

“If it was my money, I would certainly try to look into if this was some sort of transient thing. Even when they started talking about statins, there was also this transient increase in alanine transaminase that seems to go away after a while,” he said.

“But of course, if this was persistent and triglycerides in the liver kept accumulating, then it’s a problem,” Dr. Nordestgaard added, “and then you would need to have some sort of thinking about whether you could couple it with something that got rid of the liver fat.”

He also agreed with Dr. Marston that, even if vupanorsen does not clear all hurdles before making it to market, the approach is promising.

“The target,” Dr. Nordestgaard said, seems “fantastic, from my point of view anyway.”

Dr. Marston explained that VLDL cholesterol, remnant cholesterol, and triglycerides are “surrogates for triglyceride-rich” lipoproteins, and that they are “increasingly recognized” as cardiovascular risk factors.

He highlighted that currently available therapies achieve reductions of these compounds of between 30% and 50%.

TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 included adults on stable statin therapy who had a triglyceride level of 150 mg/dL to 500 mg/dL and a non-HDL cholesterol level of 100 mg/dL or higher.

The participants were randomly assigned to one of six 2- or 4-week dosing schedules of vupanorsen or placebo and followed up over 24 weeks for a series of primary and additional endpoints, as well as safety outcomes.

The team recruited 286 individuals, who had a median age of 64 years; 44% were female. The majority (87%) were white.

The mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², 50% had diabetes, 13% had experienced a prior myocardial infarction, and 51% were receiving high-intensity statins.

As previously reported, vupanorsen was associated with a reduction in non-HDL cholesterol vs. placebo of 22%-28%, alongside a 6%-15% reduction in apolipoprotein B levels and an 8%-16% reduction in LDL cholesterol.

In contrast, Dr. Marston showed that the various dosing schedules of the drug were associated with reductions in levels of VLDL cholesterol of 52%-66% vs. placebo at 24 weeks.

Over the same period, remnant cholesterol levels were lowered by 42%-59% vs. placebo, and triglycerides were reduced by 44%-57% in patients given vupanorsen.

There were also reductions in ANGPTL3 levels of 70%-95%.

Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect of vupanorsen was seen regardless of age, sex, body mass index, presence of diabetes, baseline triglycerides, and intensity of statin therapy.

Dr. Marston highlighted that the reductions in triglycerides, VLDL cholesterol, and remnant cholesterol levels were directly related to those for ANGPTL3 levels, but that the reductions remained meaningful even at less than maximal reductions in ANGPTL.

For example, even when ANGPTL3 levels were reduced by 70%, there were 50% reductions in triglyceride levels, 70% reductions in VLDL cholesterol levels, and a 50% drop in remnant cholesterol levels.

This, he noted, is important given that safety signals such as increases in alanine transaminase and hepatic fat occurred in a dose-dependent manner with ANGPTL3 reductions and were “most pronounced” only at the highest level of ANGPTL3 reduction.

The TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Marston disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Amgen, Ionis, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Ionis, Amgen, Kowa, Denka, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Esperion, and Silence Therapeutics.

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

MILAN, Italy – The antisense oligonucleotide vupanorsen substantially reduces very-low-density-lipoprotein (VLDL) and remnant cholesterol levels in patients with raised lipids despite statin therapy, suggests a subanalysis of TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 that appears to offer more hope than the primary study findings.

Vupanorsen targets hepatic angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3), which inhibits enzymes involved in triglyceride and cholesterol metabolism.

Earlier this year, headline data from TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 suggested that the drug reduced triglycerides and non–high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol to a degree that was significant but not clinically meaningful for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Moreover, as reported by this news organization, there were safety concerns over increases in liver enzymes among patients taking the drug, as well as dose-related increases in hepatic fat.

As a result, Pfizer announced that it would discontinue its clinical development program for vupanorsen and return the development rights to Ionis, following the signing of a worldwide exclusive agreement in November 2019.

Now, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, MPH, cardiovascular medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, has presented a post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b study, showing that the drug reduces VLDL and remnant cholesterol levels by up to 60%.

These were closely tied to reductions in ANGPTL3 levels, although substantial reductions in cholesterol levels were achieved even at less than maximal reductions in ANGPTL3, where the impact on safety outcomes was reduced.

Dr. Marston said that lower doses of vupanorsen, where the safety effects would be less, or other drugs that inhibit ANGPTL3, “may have an important role in patients with residual dyslipidemia despite current therapy.”

The results were presented at the 90th European Atherosclerosis Society Congress on May 23.

Dr. Marston told this news organization that some of the reductions they saw with the lower doses of vupanorsen were “just as good as any other therapy, and the safety profile was … much better than at the highest dose.”

They wanted to pursue the subgroup analysis, despite Pfizer’s announcement, partly to “learn something in terms of the potential efficacy of the ANGPTL3 pathway in general.”

Dr. Marston said that Ionis is now focused on ANGPTL3, and the current results suggest that it “works very well,” so if other drugs are able to achieve the same efficacy as vupanorsen “but without the effects,” then it may “get elbowed out.”

Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, PhD, of Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, who was not involved in the study, called the findings “very encouraging.”

He told this news organization that being able to reduce LDL cholesterol as well as VLDL and remnant cholesterol is “exactly what I would be dreaming about” with a drug like vupanorsen.

Dr. Nordestgaard nevertheless underlined that “one would have to look carefully” at the safety of the drug.

“If it was my money, I would certainly try to look into if this was some sort of transient thing. Even when they started talking about statins, there was also this transient increase in alanine transaminase that seems to go away after a while,” he said.

“But of course, if this was persistent and triglycerides in the liver kept accumulating, then it’s a problem,” Dr. Nordestgaard added, “and then you would need to have some sort of thinking about whether you could couple it with something that got rid of the liver fat.”

He also agreed with Dr. Marston that, even if vupanorsen does not clear all hurdles before making it to market, the approach is promising.

“The target,” Dr. Nordestgaard said, seems “fantastic, from my point of view anyway.”

Dr. Marston explained that VLDL cholesterol, remnant cholesterol, and triglycerides are “surrogates for triglyceride-rich” lipoproteins, and that they are “increasingly recognized” as cardiovascular risk factors.

He highlighted that currently available therapies achieve reductions of these compounds of between 30% and 50%.

TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 included adults on stable statin therapy who had a triglyceride level of 150 mg/dL to 500 mg/dL and a non-HDL cholesterol level of 100 mg/dL or higher.

The participants were randomly assigned to one of six 2- or 4-week dosing schedules of vupanorsen or placebo and followed up over 24 weeks for a series of primary and additional endpoints, as well as safety outcomes.

The team recruited 286 individuals, who had a median age of 64 years; 44% were female. The majority (87%) were white.

The mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², 50% had diabetes, 13% had experienced a prior myocardial infarction, and 51% were receiving high-intensity statins.

As previously reported, vupanorsen was associated with a reduction in non-HDL cholesterol vs. placebo of 22%-28%, alongside a 6%-15% reduction in apolipoprotein B levels and an 8%-16% reduction in LDL cholesterol.

In contrast, Dr. Marston showed that the various dosing schedules of the drug were associated with reductions in levels of VLDL cholesterol of 52%-66% vs. placebo at 24 weeks.

Over the same period, remnant cholesterol levels were lowered by 42%-59% vs. placebo, and triglycerides were reduced by 44%-57% in patients given vupanorsen.

There were also reductions in ANGPTL3 levels of 70%-95%.

Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect of vupanorsen was seen regardless of age, sex, body mass index, presence of diabetes, baseline triglycerides, and intensity of statin therapy.

Dr. Marston highlighted that the reductions in triglycerides, VLDL cholesterol, and remnant cholesterol levels were directly related to those for ANGPTL3 levels, but that the reductions remained meaningful even at less than maximal reductions in ANGPTL.

For example, even when ANGPTL3 levels were reduced by 70%, there were 50% reductions in triglyceride levels, 70% reductions in VLDL cholesterol levels, and a 50% drop in remnant cholesterol levels.

This, he noted, is important given that safety signals such as increases in alanine transaminase and hepatic fat occurred in a dose-dependent manner with ANGPTL3 reductions and were “most pronounced” only at the highest level of ANGPTL3 reduction.

The TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Marston disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Amgen, Ionis, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Ionis, Amgen, Kowa, Denka, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Esperion, and Silence Therapeutics.

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

MILAN, Italy – The antisense oligonucleotide vupanorsen substantially reduces very-low-density-lipoprotein (VLDL) and remnant cholesterol levels in patients with raised lipids despite statin therapy, suggests a subanalysis of TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 that appears to offer more hope than the primary study findings.

Vupanorsen targets hepatic angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3), which inhibits enzymes involved in triglyceride and cholesterol metabolism.

Earlier this year, headline data from TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 suggested that the drug reduced triglycerides and non–high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol to a degree that was significant but not clinically meaningful for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Moreover, as reported by this news organization, there were safety concerns over increases in liver enzymes among patients taking the drug, as well as dose-related increases in hepatic fat.

As a result, Pfizer announced that it would discontinue its clinical development program for vupanorsen and return the development rights to Ionis, following the signing of a worldwide exclusive agreement in November 2019.

Now, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, MPH, cardiovascular medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, has presented a post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b study, showing that the drug reduces VLDL and remnant cholesterol levels by up to 60%.

These were closely tied to reductions in ANGPTL3 levels, although substantial reductions in cholesterol levels were achieved even at less than maximal reductions in ANGPTL3, where the impact on safety outcomes was reduced.

Dr. Marston said that lower doses of vupanorsen, where the safety effects would be less, or other drugs that inhibit ANGPTL3, “may have an important role in patients with residual dyslipidemia despite current therapy.”

The results were presented at the 90th European Atherosclerosis Society Congress on May 23.

Dr. Marston told this news organization that some of the reductions they saw with the lower doses of vupanorsen were “just as good as any other therapy, and the safety profile was … much better than at the highest dose.”

They wanted to pursue the subgroup analysis, despite Pfizer’s announcement, partly to “learn something in terms of the potential efficacy of the ANGPTL3 pathway in general.”

Dr. Marston said that Ionis is now focused on ANGPTL3, and the current results suggest that it “works very well,” so if other drugs are able to achieve the same efficacy as vupanorsen “but without the effects,” then it may “get elbowed out.”

Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, PhD, of Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, who was not involved in the study, called the findings “very encouraging.”

He told this news organization that being able to reduce LDL cholesterol as well as VLDL and remnant cholesterol is “exactly what I would be dreaming about” with a drug like vupanorsen.

Dr. Nordestgaard nevertheless underlined that “one would have to look carefully” at the safety of the drug.

“If it was my money, I would certainly try to look into if this was some sort of transient thing. Even when they started talking about statins, there was also this transient increase in alanine transaminase that seems to go away after a while,” he said.

“But of course, if this was persistent and triglycerides in the liver kept accumulating, then it’s a problem,” Dr. Nordestgaard added, “and then you would need to have some sort of thinking about whether you could couple it with something that got rid of the liver fat.”

He also agreed with Dr. Marston that, even if vupanorsen does not clear all hurdles before making it to market, the approach is promising.

“The target,” Dr. Nordestgaard said, seems “fantastic, from my point of view anyway.”

Dr. Marston explained that VLDL cholesterol, remnant cholesterol, and triglycerides are “surrogates for triglyceride-rich” lipoproteins, and that they are “increasingly recognized” as cardiovascular risk factors.

He highlighted that currently available therapies achieve reductions of these compounds of between 30% and 50%.

TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 included adults on stable statin therapy who had a triglyceride level of 150 mg/dL to 500 mg/dL and a non-HDL cholesterol level of 100 mg/dL or higher.

The participants were randomly assigned to one of six 2- or 4-week dosing schedules of vupanorsen or placebo and followed up over 24 weeks for a series of primary and additional endpoints, as well as safety outcomes.

The team recruited 286 individuals, who had a median age of 64 years; 44% were female. The majority (87%) were white.

The mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², 50% had diabetes, 13% had experienced a prior myocardial infarction, and 51% were receiving high-intensity statins.

As previously reported, vupanorsen was associated with a reduction in non-HDL cholesterol vs. placebo of 22%-28%, alongside a 6%-15% reduction in apolipoprotein B levels and an 8%-16% reduction in LDL cholesterol.

In contrast, Dr. Marston showed that the various dosing schedules of the drug were associated with reductions in levels of VLDL cholesterol of 52%-66% vs. placebo at 24 weeks.

Over the same period, remnant cholesterol levels were lowered by 42%-59% vs. placebo, and triglycerides were reduced by 44%-57% in patients given vupanorsen.

There were also reductions in ANGPTL3 levels of 70%-95%.

Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect of vupanorsen was seen regardless of age, sex, body mass index, presence of diabetes, baseline triglycerides, and intensity of statin therapy.

Dr. Marston highlighted that the reductions in triglycerides, VLDL cholesterol, and remnant cholesterol levels were directly related to those for ANGPTL3 levels, but that the reductions remained meaningful even at less than maximal reductions in ANGPTL.

For example, even when ANGPTL3 levels were reduced by 70%, there were 50% reductions in triglyceride levels, 70% reductions in VLDL cholesterol levels, and a 50% drop in remnant cholesterol levels.

This, he noted, is important given that safety signals such as increases in alanine transaminase and hepatic fat occurred in a dose-dependent manner with ANGPTL3 reductions and were “most pronounced” only at the highest level of ANGPTL3 reduction.

The TRANSLATE-TIMI 70 study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Marston disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Amgen, Ionis, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Ionis, Amgen, Kowa, Denka, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Esperion, and Silence Therapeutics.

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

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

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

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

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

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

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

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.

“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.

Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

40% reduced risk of kidney function decline

The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.

Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).

“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.

The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”

Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).

“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.

“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.

Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria

One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.

The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.

Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).

The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:

• Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
• Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.

During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.

In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.

Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.

Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.

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

The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.

“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.

Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

40% reduced risk of kidney function decline

The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.

Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).

“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.

The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”

Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).

“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.

“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.

Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria

One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.

The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.

Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).

The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:

• Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
• Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.

During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.

In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.

Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.

Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.

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

The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.

“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.

Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

40% reduced risk of kidney function decline

The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.

Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).

“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.

The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”

Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).

“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.

“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.

Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria

One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.

The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.

Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).

The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:

• Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
• Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.

During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.

In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.

Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.

Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.

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

A meta-analysis of 71 randomized controlled trials has found the sweet spot for omega-3 fatty acid intake for lowering blood pressure: between 2 and 3 g/day. The investigators also reported that people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease may benefit from higher daily intake of omega-3.

The study analyzed data from randomized controlled trials involving 4,973 individuals and published from 1987 to 2020. Most of the trials used a combined supplementation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Outcomes analysis involved the impact of combined DHA-EPA at 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 grams daily on average changes in both systolic and diastolic BP and compared them with the placebo or control groups who had a combined intake of 0 g/day.

“We found a significant nonlinear dose-response relationship for both SBP and DBP models,” wrote senior author Xinzhi Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Li is program director of the school of pharmacy at Macau University of Science and Technology in Taipa, China.

Most of the trials included in the meta-analysis evaluated fish oil supplements, but a number also included EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids consumed in food.

When the investigators analyzed studies that used an average baseline SBP of greater than 130 mm Hg, they found that increasing omega-3 supplementation resulted in strong reductions in SBP and DBP, but not so with people with baseline SBP below 130 mm Hg.

Across the entire cohort, average SBP and DBP changes averaged –2.61 (95% confidence interval, –3.57 to –1.65) and –1.64 (95% CI, –2.29 to –0.99) mm Hg for people taking 2 g/d omega-3 supplements, and –2.61 (95% CI, –3.52 to –1.69) and –1.80 (95% CI, –2.38 to –1.23) for those on 3 g/d. The changes weren’t as robust in higher and lower intake groups overall.

However, the higher the BP, the more robust the reductions. For those with SBP greater than 130 mm Hg, 3 g/d resulted in an average change of –3.22 mm Hg (95% CI, –5.21 to –1.23). In the greater than 80 mm Hg DBP group, 3 g/d of omega-3 resulted in an average –3.81 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, –4.48 to –1.87). In patients with BP greater than 140/90 and hypertension, the reductions were even more pronounced. And in patients with BP greater than 130/80, omega-3 intake of 4-5 g/d had a greater impact than 2-3 g/d, although that benefit didn’t carry over in the greater than 140/90 group.

High cholesterol was also a factor in determining the benefits of omega-3 supplementation on BP, as Dr. Li and colleagues wrote that they found “an approximately linear relationship” between hyperlipidemia and SBP, “suggesting that increasing supplementation was associated with greater reductions in SBP.” Likewise, the study found stronger effects on BP in studies with an average patient age greater than 45 years.

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued an update that consuming combined EPA and DHA may lower BP in the general population and reduce the risk of hypertension, but that “the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive.”

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

“However, while our study may add a layer of credible evidence, it does not meet the threshold to make an authorized health claim for omega-3 fatty acids in compliance with FDA regulations,” Dr. Li said.

The study addresses shortcomings of previous studies of omega-3 and BP and by identifying the optimal dose, Marc George, MRCP, PhD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College, London, and Ajay Gupta, MD, PhD, of the William Harvey Research Institute at Queen Mary University, London, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “More importantly, they have demonstrated a significantly stronger and increased BP-lowering effect in higher cardiovascular risk groups, such as those with hypertension or hyperlipidemia.”

They also noted that the 2.61–mm Hg reduction in SBP the study reported is “likely to be significant” on a population level. “A 2–mm Hg reduction in SBP is estimated to reduce stroke mortality by 10% and deaths from ischemic heart disease by 7%,” they wrote. “Expressed another way, an analysis in the U.S. population using 2010 data estimates that a population-wide reduction in SBP of 2 mm Hg in those aged 45- 64 years would translate to 30,045 fewer cardiovascular events ([coronary heart disease], stroke, and heart failure).”

The investigators and editorialists have no disclosures.

A meta-analysis of 71 randomized controlled trials has found the sweet spot for omega-3 fatty acid intake for lowering blood pressure: between 2 and 3 g/day. The investigators also reported that people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease may benefit from higher daily intake of omega-3.

The study analyzed data from randomized controlled trials involving 4,973 individuals and published from 1987 to 2020. Most of the trials used a combined supplementation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Outcomes analysis involved the impact of combined DHA-EPA at 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 grams daily on average changes in both systolic and diastolic BP and compared them with the placebo or control groups who had a combined intake of 0 g/day.

“We found a significant nonlinear dose-response relationship for both SBP and DBP models,” wrote senior author Xinzhi Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Li is program director of the school of pharmacy at Macau University of Science and Technology in Taipa, China.

Most of the trials included in the meta-analysis evaluated fish oil supplements, but a number also included EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids consumed in food.

When the investigators analyzed studies that used an average baseline SBP of greater than 130 mm Hg, they found that increasing omega-3 supplementation resulted in strong reductions in SBP and DBP, but not so with people with baseline SBP below 130 mm Hg.

Across the entire cohort, average SBP and DBP changes averaged –2.61 (95% confidence interval, –3.57 to –1.65) and –1.64 (95% CI, –2.29 to –0.99) mm Hg for people taking 2 g/d omega-3 supplements, and –2.61 (95% CI, –3.52 to –1.69) and –1.80 (95% CI, –2.38 to –1.23) for those on 3 g/d. The changes weren’t as robust in higher and lower intake groups overall.

However, the higher the BP, the more robust the reductions. For those with SBP greater than 130 mm Hg, 3 g/d resulted in an average change of –3.22 mm Hg (95% CI, –5.21 to –1.23). In the greater than 80 mm Hg DBP group, 3 g/d of omega-3 resulted in an average –3.81 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, –4.48 to –1.87). In patients with BP greater than 140/90 and hypertension, the reductions were even more pronounced. And in patients with BP greater than 130/80, omega-3 intake of 4-5 g/d had a greater impact than 2-3 g/d, although that benefit didn’t carry over in the greater than 140/90 group.

High cholesterol was also a factor in determining the benefits of omega-3 supplementation on BP, as Dr. Li and colleagues wrote that they found “an approximately linear relationship” between hyperlipidemia and SBP, “suggesting that increasing supplementation was associated with greater reductions in SBP.” Likewise, the study found stronger effects on BP in studies with an average patient age greater than 45 years.

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued an update that consuming combined EPA and DHA may lower BP in the general population and reduce the risk of hypertension, but that “the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive.”

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

“However, while our study may add a layer of credible evidence, it does not meet the threshold to make an authorized health claim for omega-3 fatty acids in compliance with FDA regulations,” Dr. Li said.

The study addresses shortcomings of previous studies of omega-3 and BP and by identifying the optimal dose, Marc George, MRCP, PhD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College, London, and Ajay Gupta, MD, PhD, of the William Harvey Research Institute at Queen Mary University, London, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “More importantly, they have demonstrated a significantly stronger and increased BP-lowering effect in higher cardiovascular risk groups, such as those with hypertension or hyperlipidemia.”

They also noted that the 2.61–mm Hg reduction in SBP the study reported is “likely to be significant” on a population level. “A 2–mm Hg reduction in SBP is estimated to reduce stroke mortality by 10% and deaths from ischemic heart disease by 7%,” they wrote. “Expressed another way, an analysis in the U.S. population using 2010 data estimates that a population-wide reduction in SBP of 2 mm Hg in those aged 45- 64 years would translate to 30,045 fewer cardiovascular events ([coronary heart disease], stroke, and heart failure).”

The investigators and editorialists have no disclosures.

A meta-analysis of 71 randomized controlled trials has found the sweet spot for omega-3 fatty acid intake for lowering blood pressure: between 2 and 3 g/day. The investigators also reported that people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease may benefit from higher daily intake of omega-3.

The study analyzed data from randomized controlled trials involving 4,973 individuals and published from 1987 to 2020. Most of the trials used a combined supplementation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Outcomes analysis involved the impact of combined DHA-EPA at 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 grams daily on average changes in both systolic and diastolic BP and compared them with the placebo or control groups who had a combined intake of 0 g/day.

“We found a significant nonlinear dose-response relationship for both SBP and DBP models,” wrote senior author Xinzhi Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Li is program director of the school of pharmacy at Macau University of Science and Technology in Taipa, China.

Most of the trials included in the meta-analysis evaluated fish oil supplements, but a number also included EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids consumed in food.

When the investigators analyzed studies that used an average baseline SBP of greater than 130 mm Hg, they found that increasing omega-3 supplementation resulted in strong reductions in SBP and DBP, but not so with people with baseline SBP below 130 mm Hg.

Across the entire cohort, average SBP and DBP changes averaged –2.61 (95% confidence interval, –3.57 to –1.65) and –1.64 (95% CI, –2.29 to –0.99) mm Hg for people taking 2 g/d omega-3 supplements, and –2.61 (95% CI, –3.52 to –1.69) and –1.80 (95% CI, –2.38 to –1.23) for those on 3 g/d. The changes weren’t as robust in higher and lower intake groups overall.

However, the higher the BP, the more robust the reductions. For those with SBP greater than 130 mm Hg, 3 g/d resulted in an average change of –3.22 mm Hg (95% CI, –5.21 to –1.23). In the greater than 80 mm Hg DBP group, 3 g/d of omega-3 resulted in an average –3.81 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, –4.48 to –1.87). In patients with BP greater than 140/90 and hypertension, the reductions were even more pronounced. And in patients with BP greater than 130/80, omega-3 intake of 4-5 g/d had a greater impact than 2-3 g/d, although that benefit didn’t carry over in the greater than 140/90 group.

High cholesterol was also a factor in determining the benefits of omega-3 supplementation on BP, as Dr. Li and colleagues wrote that they found “an approximately linear relationship” between hyperlipidemia and SBP, “suggesting that increasing supplementation was associated with greater reductions in SBP.” Likewise, the study found stronger effects on BP in studies with an average patient age greater than 45 years.

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued an update that consuming combined EPA and DHA may lower BP in the general population and reduce the risk of hypertension, but that “the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive.”

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

“However, while our study may add a layer of credible evidence, it does not meet the threshold to make an authorized health claim for omega-3 fatty acids in compliance with FDA regulations,” Dr. Li said.

The study addresses shortcomings of previous studies of omega-3 and BP and by identifying the optimal dose, Marc George, MRCP, PhD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College, London, and Ajay Gupta, MD, PhD, of the William Harvey Research Institute at Queen Mary University, London, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “More importantly, they have demonstrated a significantly stronger and increased BP-lowering effect in higher cardiovascular risk groups, such as those with hypertension or hyperlipidemia.”

They also noted that the 2.61–mm Hg reduction in SBP the study reported is “likely to be significant” on a population level. “A 2–mm Hg reduction in SBP is estimated to reduce stroke mortality by 10% and deaths from ischemic heart disease by 7%,” they wrote. “Expressed another way, an analysis in the U.S. population using 2010 data estimates that a population-wide reduction in SBP of 2 mm Hg in those aged 45- 64 years would translate to 30,045 fewer cardiovascular events ([coronary heart disease], stroke, and heart failure).”

The investigators and editorialists have no disclosures.

MILAN – The increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events caused by elevated lipoprotein(a) levels can potentially be precisely offset by lowering LDL cholesterol to specific levels, suggests a novel study that underscores the importance or early intervention.

The results, derived from an analysis of data on Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol levels and associated genetic risk scores in almost 500,000 individuals from the United Kingdom, have been used to develop a series of age-related targets for lowering LDL cholesterol levels to counter the risk associated with lifetime Lp(a) exposure.

Measuring Lp(a) levels can “substantially refine individual estimates of absolute risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study presenter Brian A. Ference, MD, Centre for Naturally Randomized Trials, University of Cambridge (England).

This can “directly inform treatment decisions about the intensity of LDL lowering or other risk-factor modification needed to overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a).”

Dr. Ference said this will allow clinicians to personalize the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and identify people “who may benefit from potent Lp(a)-lowering therapies when they become available.”

The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2022 congress on May 24.

In addition to producing a tabular version of the intensification of LDL-cholesterol reduction needed to overcome the increased cardiovascular risk at different levels of Lp(a), stratified by age, Dr. Ference is working with the EAS to develop an app to further deliver on that personalized prevention.

It will display an individual’s lifetime risk for myocardial infarction or stroke, with and without the inclusion of Lp(a) levels, and determine not only the percentage of increased risk caused by Lp(a), but also the amount by which LDL cholesterol needs to be lowered to overcome that risk.

“The whole rationale for this study was to say, how can we give practical advice on how to use Lp(a) to inform clinical decisions about how to individualize personal risk reduction,” Dr. Ference told this news organization.

“What the app will do is make it very easy for clinicians to, first, understand how much Lp(a) increases risk, but specifically how they can use that information to directly inform their treatment decisions.”

In addition, Dr. Ference said that it will “show patients why it’s important for them” to intensify LDL lowering to overcome their particular level of Lp(a).

Other key takeaways from the results is the importance of intervention as early as possible to minimize the impact of lifetime exposure to increased Lp(a), and that the reduction in LDL cholesterol required to achieve that remains relatively modest.

For Dr. Ference, this means ideally beginning comprehensive health checks at 30 years of age and starting lipid-lowering interventions immediately for those at risk.

“The good thing about LDL and other causes of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is it doesn’t really matter how you lower it,” he said, noting that it could be with diet, lifestyle interventions, or medication.
 

Handy tool

The new app could be a “handy tool to counsel patients,” Florian Kronenberg, MD, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, told this news organization.

“We can say, look, you have high Lp(a),” he said. “This is coming from nature, from your genetics, but here we have a point where we can act on your high risk by lowering LDL further. This is important to explain to the patient,” said Dr. Kronenberg, who was not involved in the study.

He emphasized that it is crucial to get across the idea of an individual’s global risk, with not just Lp(a) or cholesterol levels influencing their likelihood of cardiovascular events, but also their age, blood pressure, smoking status, and underlying genetic risk.

Dr. Kronenberg said the current data will be helpful in explaining to clinicians why they should lower LDL-cholesterol levels when a patients had high Lp(a), again centered on the idea of lowering their global risk.

During his presentation, Dr. Ference noted that an increase in Lp(a) levels is associated with a log-linear increase in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is proportional to the absolute, rather than relative, magnitude of Lp(a) increase.

“Unfortunately, unlike other proteins,” he continued, diet and exercise do not affect levels, and there are currently no effective therapies to lower the risks associated with increased Lp(a) concentrations.

“For that reason,” he said, the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, on which Dr. Ference was a coauthor, “recommend that we intensify life risk-factor modification in persons with elevated risks.”

However, he added, “this guidance is not specific enough to be useful, and that has created a great deal of inertia among clinicians,” with some concluding that they don’t need to measure Lp(a) “because there’s nothing they can do for it.”

Until the development of novel therapies that directly target Lp(a), the authors sought to quantify the amount of LDL lowering needed to “overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a),” he said.

They studied data on 455,765 individuals from the UK Biobank who did not have a history of cardiovascular events, diabetes, or any cancer before the age of 30. They also had LDL cholesterol levels below 5 mmol/L at the time of enrollment to exclude people with presumed familial hypercholesterolemia.

The researchers used an Lp(a) genetic risk score based on the variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 and an LDL instrumental variable genetic score comprised of 100 variants to randomly categorize individuals with average Lp(a) levels, higher Lp(a) levels, or higher Lp(a) and lower LDL-cholesterol levels.

The data showed that, with elevated absolute levels of measured Lp(a) and with elevated genetic risk scores, there was a progressive increase in the lifetime risk for major coronary events.

When looking at the combination of both increased Lp(a) levels and lower LDL-cholesterol levels, they found that the increase in risk for major coronary events at Lp(a) of 123 nmol/L could be offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 19.5 mg/dL.

For people with an Lp(a) level of 251 nmol/L, the increase in risk for major coronary events was offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 36.1 mg/dL.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the magnitude of intensification of LDL-cholesterol lowering needed to overcome the risk caused by elevated Lp(a) levels varied by age.

For example, in individuals with an Lp(a) level of 220 nmol/L, the reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels needed to offset the risk for major coronary events was calculated to be 0.8 mmol/L if lipid-lowering was started at 30 years of age, rising to 0.9 mmol/L if started at 40 years, 1.2 mmol/L if started at 50 years, and 1.5 mmol/L if started at 60 years.

This, Dr. Ference said, suggests that “diet and lifestyle modification is unlikely to be an effective strategy if started later.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Ference declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Esperion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Viatris, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, and KrKa Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kronenberg declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Kaneka.

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

MILAN – The increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events caused by elevated lipoprotein(a) levels can potentially be precisely offset by lowering LDL cholesterol to specific levels, suggests a novel study that underscores the importance or early intervention.

The results, derived from an analysis of data on Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol levels and associated genetic risk scores in almost 500,000 individuals from the United Kingdom, have been used to develop a series of age-related targets for lowering LDL cholesterol levels to counter the risk associated with lifetime Lp(a) exposure.

Measuring Lp(a) levels can “substantially refine individual estimates of absolute risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study presenter Brian A. Ference, MD, Centre for Naturally Randomized Trials, University of Cambridge (England).

This can “directly inform treatment decisions about the intensity of LDL lowering or other risk-factor modification needed to overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a).”

Dr. Ference said this will allow clinicians to personalize the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and identify people “who may benefit from potent Lp(a)-lowering therapies when they become available.”

The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2022 congress on May 24.

In addition to producing a tabular version of the intensification of LDL-cholesterol reduction needed to overcome the increased cardiovascular risk at different levels of Lp(a), stratified by age, Dr. Ference is working with the EAS to develop an app to further deliver on that personalized prevention.

It will display an individual’s lifetime risk for myocardial infarction or stroke, with and without the inclusion of Lp(a) levels, and determine not only the percentage of increased risk caused by Lp(a), but also the amount by which LDL cholesterol needs to be lowered to overcome that risk.

“The whole rationale for this study was to say, how can we give practical advice on how to use Lp(a) to inform clinical decisions about how to individualize personal risk reduction,” Dr. Ference told this news organization.

“What the app will do is make it very easy for clinicians to, first, understand how much Lp(a) increases risk, but specifically how they can use that information to directly inform their treatment decisions.”

In addition, Dr. Ference said that it will “show patients why it’s important for them” to intensify LDL lowering to overcome their particular level of Lp(a).

Other key takeaways from the results is the importance of intervention as early as possible to minimize the impact of lifetime exposure to increased Lp(a), and that the reduction in LDL cholesterol required to achieve that remains relatively modest.

For Dr. Ference, this means ideally beginning comprehensive health checks at 30 years of age and starting lipid-lowering interventions immediately for those at risk.

“The good thing about LDL and other causes of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is it doesn’t really matter how you lower it,” he said, noting that it could be with diet, lifestyle interventions, or medication.
 

Handy tool

The new app could be a “handy tool to counsel patients,” Florian Kronenberg, MD, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, told this news organization.

“We can say, look, you have high Lp(a),” he said. “This is coming from nature, from your genetics, but here we have a point where we can act on your high risk by lowering LDL further. This is important to explain to the patient,” said Dr. Kronenberg, who was not involved in the study.

He emphasized that it is crucial to get across the idea of an individual’s global risk, with not just Lp(a) or cholesterol levels influencing their likelihood of cardiovascular events, but also their age, blood pressure, smoking status, and underlying genetic risk.

Dr. Kronenberg said the current data will be helpful in explaining to clinicians why they should lower LDL-cholesterol levels when a patients had high Lp(a), again centered on the idea of lowering their global risk.

During his presentation, Dr. Ference noted that an increase in Lp(a) levels is associated with a log-linear increase in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is proportional to the absolute, rather than relative, magnitude of Lp(a) increase.

“Unfortunately, unlike other proteins,” he continued, diet and exercise do not affect levels, and there are currently no effective therapies to lower the risks associated with increased Lp(a) concentrations.

“For that reason,” he said, the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, on which Dr. Ference was a coauthor, “recommend that we intensify life risk-factor modification in persons with elevated risks.”

However, he added, “this guidance is not specific enough to be useful, and that has created a great deal of inertia among clinicians,” with some concluding that they don’t need to measure Lp(a) “because there’s nothing they can do for it.”

Until the development of novel therapies that directly target Lp(a), the authors sought to quantify the amount of LDL lowering needed to “overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a),” he said.

They studied data on 455,765 individuals from the UK Biobank who did not have a history of cardiovascular events, diabetes, or any cancer before the age of 30. They also had LDL cholesterol levels below 5 mmol/L at the time of enrollment to exclude people with presumed familial hypercholesterolemia.

The researchers used an Lp(a) genetic risk score based on the variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 and an LDL instrumental variable genetic score comprised of 100 variants to randomly categorize individuals with average Lp(a) levels, higher Lp(a) levels, or higher Lp(a) and lower LDL-cholesterol levels.

The data showed that, with elevated absolute levels of measured Lp(a) and with elevated genetic risk scores, there was a progressive increase in the lifetime risk for major coronary events.

When looking at the combination of both increased Lp(a) levels and lower LDL-cholesterol levels, they found that the increase in risk for major coronary events at Lp(a) of 123 nmol/L could be offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 19.5 mg/dL.

For people with an Lp(a) level of 251 nmol/L, the increase in risk for major coronary events was offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 36.1 mg/dL.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the magnitude of intensification of LDL-cholesterol lowering needed to overcome the risk caused by elevated Lp(a) levels varied by age.

For example, in individuals with an Lp(a) level of 220 nmol/L, the reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels needed to offset the risk for major coronary events was calculated to be 0.8 mmol/L if lipid-lowering was started at 30 years of age, rising to 0.9 mmol/L if started at 40 years, 1.2 mmol/L if started at 50 years, and 1.5 mmol/L if started at 60 years.

This, Dr. Ference said, suggests that “diet and lifestyle modification is unlikely to be an effective strategy if started later.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Ference declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Esperion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Viatris, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, and KrKa Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kronenberg declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Kaneka.

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

MILAN – The increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events caused by elevated lipoprotein(a) levels can potentially be precisely offset by lowering LDL cholesterol to specific levels, suggests a novel study that underscores the importance or early intervention.

The results, derived from an analysis of data on Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol levels and associated genetic risk scores in almost 500,000 individuals from the United Kingdom, have been used to develop a series of age-related targets for lowering LDL cholesterol levels to counter the risk associated with lifetime Lp(a) exposure.

Measuring Lp(a) levels can “substantially refine individual estimates of absolute risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study presenter Brian A. Ference, MD, Centre for Naturally Randomized Trials, University of Cambridge (England).

This can “directly inform treatment decisions about the intensity of LDL lowering or other risk-factor modification needed to overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a).”

Dr. Ference said this will allow clinicians to personalize the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and identify people “who may benefit from potent Lp(a)-lowering therapies when they become available.”

The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2022 congress on May 24.

In addition to producing a tabular version of the intensification of LDL-cholesterol reduction needed to overcome the increased cardiovascular risk at different levels of Lp(a), stratified by age, Dr. Ference is working with the EAS to develop an app to further deliver on that personalized prevention.

It will display an individual’s lifetime risk for myocardial infarction or stroke, with and without the inclusion of Lp(a) levels, and determine not only the percentage of increased risk caused by Lp(a), but also the amount by which LDL cholesterol needs to be lowered to overcome that risk.

“The whole rationale for this study was to say, how can we give practical advice on how to use Lp(a) to inform clinical decisions about how to individualize personal risk reduction,” Dr. Ference told this news organization.

“What the app will do is make it very easy for clinicians to, first, understand how much Lp(a) increases risk, but specifically how they can use that information to directly inform their treatment decisions.”

In addition, Dr. Ference said that it will “show patients why it’s important for them” to intensify LDL lowering to overcome their particular level of Lp(a).

Other key takeaways from the results is the importance of intervention as early as possible to minimize the impact of lifetime exposure to increased Lp(a), and that the reduction in LDL cholesterol required to achieve that remains relatively modest.

For Dr. Ference, this means ideally beginning comprehensive health checks at 30 years of age and starting lipid-lowering interventions immediately for those at risk.

“The good thing about LDL and other causes of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is it doesn’t really matter how you lower it,” he said, noting that it could be with diet, lifestyle interventions, or medication.
 

Handy tool

The new app could be a “handy tool to counsel patients,” Florian Kronenberg, MD, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, told this news organization.

“We can say, look, you have high Lp(a),” he said. “This is coming from nature, from your genetics, but here we have a point where we can act on your high risk by lowering LDL further. This is important to explain to the patient,” said Dr. Kronenberg, who was not involved in the study.

He emphasized that it is crucial to get across the idea of an individual’s global risk, with not just Lp(a) or cholesterol levels influencing their likelihood of cardiovascular events, but also their age, blood pressure, smoking status, and underlying genetic risk.

Dr. Kronenberg said the current data will be helpful in explaining to clinicians why they should lower LDL-cholesterol levels when a patients had high Lp(a), again centered on the idea of lowering their global risk.

During his presentation, Dr. Ference noted that an increase in Lp(a) levels is associated with a log-linear increase in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is proportional to the absolute, rather than relative, magnitude of Lp(a) increase.

“Unfortunately, unlike other proteins,” he continued, diet and exercise do not affect levels, and there are currently no effective therapies to lower the risks associated with increased Lp(a) concentrations.

“For that reason,” he said, the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, on which Dr. Ference was a coauthor, “recommend that we intensify life risk-factor modification in persons with elevated risks.”

However, he added, “this guidance is not specific enough to be useful, and that has created a great deal of inertia among clinicians,” with some concluding that they don’t need to measure Lp(a) “because there’s nothing they can do for it.”

Until the development of novel therapies that directly target Lp(a), the authors sought to quantify the amount of LDL lowering needed to “overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a),” he said.

They studied data on 455,765 individuals from the UK Biobank who did not have a history of cardiovascular events, diabetes, or any cancer before the age of 30. They also had LDL cholesterol levels below 5 mmol/L at the time of enrollment to exclude people with presumed familial hypercholesterolemia.

The researchers used an Lp(a) genetic risk score based on the variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 and an LDL instrumental variable genetic score comprised of 100 variants to randomly categorize individuals with average Lp(a) levels, higher Lp(a) levels, or higher Lp(a) and lower LDL-cholesterol levels.

The data showed that, with elevated absolute levels of measured Lp(a) and with elevated genetic risk scores, there was a progressive increase in the lifetime risk for major coronary events.

When looking at the combination of both increased Lp(a) levels and lower LDL-cholesterol levels, they found that the increase in risk for major coronary events at Lp(a) of 123 nmol/L could be offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 19.5 mg/dL.

For people with an Lp(a) level of 251 nmol/L, the increase in risk for major coronary events was offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 36.1 mg/dL.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the magnitude of intensification of LDL-cholesterol lowering needed to overcome the risk caused by elevated Lp(a) levels varied by age.

For example, in individuals with an Lp(a) level of 220 nmol/L, the reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels needed to offset the risk for major coronary events was calculated to be 0.8 mmol/L if lipid-lowering was started at 30 years of age, rising to 0.9 mmol/L if started at 40 years, 1.2 mmol/L if started at 50 years, and 1.5 mmol/L if started at 60 years.

This, Dr. Ference said, suggests that “diet and lifestyle modification is unlikely to be an effective strategy if started later.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Ference declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Esperion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Viatris, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, and KrKa Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kronenberg declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Kaneka.

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

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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