CAD & Atherosclerosis

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

Eating sufficient amounts of vegetables might be good for overall health, but surprising results from a study suggested that their inclusion in the diet might have little or no effect on the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

An investigation, led by the Nuffield department of population health at the University of Oxford, found that cooked vegetables did not appear to lower CVD risk, and that a small decrease associated with eating raw vegetables could be attributed to confounding factors. They said their findings, published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition might mean that advice on vegetable intake and heart disease in high-income countries should be reappraised.

Teresa Burton/MDedge News

However, leading experts commented that the findings confirmed that higher overall vegetable consumption did lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
 

UK Biobank data

Boosting health through a diet rich in vegetables has been backed by a large body of evidence, with guidelines consistently recommending them as a valuable source of macronutrients and micronutrients, such as dietary fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals. However, the research team, which included the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Bristol, set out to probe the independent effects of cooked and raw vegetables on health outcomes. Previous epidemiological studies had demonstrated inconsistent findings, they said.

They based their research on 399,586 people with no history of angina, stroke, and myocardial infarction, who enrolled in the UK Biobank. Of those, 55.4% were women, and 90.9% were of White ethnicity. The average body mass index was 27.3.
 

Raw and cooked vegetables

From their enrollment questionnaire, the mean intake of vegetables was found to be 2.3 heaped tablespoons per day of raw vegetables, and 2.8 of cooked vegetables. During an average follow-up of 12.1 years, 4.5% of the participants went on to develop CVD.

There was an inverse association between incident CVD and total and raw vegetable intake, but not cooked vegetable intake. Those who ate the most vegetables – both cooked and raw – had a 10% lower incidence of CVD, compared with those who ate the least. However, whereas raw vegetable intake was associated with an 11% reduction in CVD for those who ate the most, compared with the least, no reduction was seen for cooked vegetables.

Consuming two or more heaped tablespoons each day of cooked and raw vegetables was associated with a lower risk of dying from CVD, but little evidence was seen that a higher intake increased protection further. Similarly, there was evidence of an inverse association of CVD mortality with raw vegetable intake.

Researcher Qi Feng, from the Nuffield department of population health, said: “Our large study did not find evidence for a protective effect of vegetable intake on the occurrence of CVD. Instead, our analyses show that the seemingly protective effect of vegetable intake against CVD risk is very likely to be accounted for by bias from residual confounding factors, related to differences in socioeconomic situation and lifestyle.”

Expert opinions

Some clinical specialists took issue with the interpretation of the findings.

Dr. Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, National Institute for Health Research clinical lecturer at St George’s, University of London, told the Science Media Centre that: “Many of the considered confounders that were adjusted for may actually represent mediating mechanisms.  For example, vegetable consumption may reduce cardiovascular risk by lowering blood pressure and bodyweight, and improving glycaemic control. 

“By adjusting for such traits, the authors may inadvertently be negating some of the mechanisms by which vegetable consumption is exerting beneficial effects.”

Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, said: “The conclusion that cooked vegetables may not be effective in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease may not be justified, especially as the group consuming the highest levels of vegetables were more likely to be receiving medication for high blood cholesterol and high blood pressure (i.e. this group was at higher risk of CVD), compared with those consuming the lowest intake.” He added: “These findings should not be taken to indicate that eating more vegetables has no benefit to health, especially cardiovascular health.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, agreed. “In short, this paper should in no way change advice to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day,” he said. “Many living in the U.K. fall well short of this, sadly, and more needs to be done to encourage better intake of vegetables.

“In fact, I suspect we may have underestimated the importance of a healthy diet on health and disease in general.”

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

Eating sufficient amounts of vegetables might be good for overall health, but surprising results from a study suggested that their inclusion in the diet might have little or no effect on the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

An investigation, led by the Nuffield department of population health at the University of Oxford, found that cooked vegetables did not appear to lower CVD risk, and that a small decrease associated with eating raw vegetables could be attributed to confounding factors. They said their findings, published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition might mean that advice on vegetable intake and heart disease in high-income countries should be reappraised.

Teresa Burton/MDedge News

However, leading experts commented that the findings confirmed that higher overall vegetable consumption did lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
 

UK Biobank data

Boosting health through a diet rich in vegetables has been backed by a large body of evidence, with guidelines consistently recommending them as a valuable source of macronutrients and micronutrients, such as dietary fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals. However, the research team, which included the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Bristol, set out to probe the independent effects of cooked and raw vegetables on health outcomes. Previous epidemiological studies had demonstrated inconsistent findings, they said.

They based their research on 399,586 people with no history of angina, stroke, and myocardial infarction, who enrolled in the UK Biobank. Of those, 55.4% were women, and 90.9% were of White ethnicity. The average body mass index was 27.3.
 

Raw and cooked vegetables

From their enrollment questionnaire, the mean intake of vegetables was found to be 2.3 heaped tablespoons per day of raw vegetables, and 2.8 of cooked vegetables. During an average follow-up of 12.1 years, 4.5% of the participants went on to develop CVD.

There was an inverse association between incident CVD and total and raw vegetable intake, but not cooked vegetable intake. Those who ate the most vegetables – both cooked and raw – had a 10% lower incidence of CVD, compared with those who ate the least. However, whereas raw vegetable intake was associated with an 11% reduction in CVD for those who ate the most, compared with the least, no reduction was seen for cooked vegetables.

Consuming two or more heaped tablespoons each day of cooked and raw vegetables was associated with a lower risk of dying from CVD, but little evidence was seen that a higher intake increased protection further. Similarly, there was evidence of an inverse association of CVD mortality with raw vegetable intake.

Researcher Qi Feng, from the Nuffield department of population health, said: “Our large study did not find evidence for a protective effect of vegetable intake on the occurrence of CVD. Instead, our analyses show that the seemingly protective effect of vegetable intake against CVD risk is very likely to be accounted for by bias from residual confounding factors, related to differences in socioeconomic situation and lifestyle.”

Expert opinions

Some clinical specialists took issue with the interpretation of the findings.

Dr. Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, National Institute for Health Research clinical lecturer at St George’s, University of London, told the Science Media Centre that: “Many of the considered confounders that were adjusted for may actually represent mediating mechanisms.  For example, vegetable consumption may reduce cardiovascular risk by lowering blood pressure and bodyweight, and improving glycaemic control. 

“By adjusting for such traits, the authors may inadvertently be negating some of the mechanisms by which vegetable consumption is exerting beneficial effects.”

Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, said: “The conclusion that cooked vegetables may not be effective in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease may not be justified, especially as the group consuming the highest levels of vegetables were more likely to be receiving medication for high blood cholesterol and high blood pressure (i.e. this group was at higher risk of CVD), compared with those consuming the lowest intake.” He added: “These findings should not be taken to indicate that eating more vegetables has no benefit to health, especially cardiovascular health.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, agreed. “In short, this paper should in no way change advice to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day,” he said. “Many living in the U.K. fall well short of this, sadly, and more needs to be done to encourage better intake of vegetables.

“In fact, I suspect we may have underestimated the importance of a healthy diet on health and disease in general.”

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

Eating sufficient amounts of vegetables might be good for overall health, but surprising results from a study suggested that their inclusion in the diet might have little or no effect on the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

An investigation, led by the Nuffield department of population health at the University of Oxford, found that cooked vegetables did not appear to lower CVD risk, and that a small decrease associated with eating raw vegetables could be attributed to confounding factors. They said their findings, published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition might mean that advice on vegetable intake and heart disease in high-income countries should be reappraised.

Teresa Burton/MDedge News

However, leading experts commented that the findings confirmed that higher overall vegetable consumption did lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
 

UK Biobank data

Boosting health through a diet rich in vegetables has been backed by a large body of evidence, with guidelines consistently recommending them as a valuable source of macronutrients and micronutrients, such as dietary fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals. However, the research team, which included the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Bristol, set out to probe the independent effects of cooked and raw vegetables on health outcomes. Previous epidemiological studies had demonstrated inconsistent findings, they said.

They based their research on 399,586 people with no history of angina, stroke, and myocardial infarction, who enrolled in the UK Biobank. Of those, 55.4% were women, and 90.9% were of White ethnicity. The average body mass index was 27.3.
 

Raw and cooked vegetables

From their enrollment questionnaire, the mean intake of vegetables was found to be 2.3 heaped tablespoons per day of raw vegetables, and 2.8 of cooked vegetables. During an average follow-up of 12.1 years, 4.5% of the participants went on to develop CVD.

There was an inverse association between incident CVD and total and raw vegetable intake, but not cooked vegetable intake. Those who ate the most vegetables – both cooked and raw – had a 10% lower incidence of CVD, compared with those who ate the least. However, whereas raw vegetable intake was associated with an 11% reduction in CVD for those who ate the most, compared with the least, no reduction was seen for cooked vegetables.

Consuming two or more heaped tablespoons each day of cooked and raw vegetables was associated with a lower risk of dying from CVD, but little evidence was seen that a higher intake increased protection further. Similarly, there was evidence of an inverse association of CVD mortality with raw vegetable intake.

Researcher Qi Feng, from the Nuffield department of population health, said: “Our large study did not find evidence for a protective effect of vegetable intake on the occurrence of CVD. Instead, our analyses show that the seemingly protective effect of vegetable intake against CVD risk is very likely to be accounted for by bias from residual confounding factors, related to differences in socioeconomic situation and lifestyle.”

Expert opinions

Some clinical specialists took issue with the interpretation of the findings.

Dr. Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, National Institute for Health Research clinical lecturer at St George’s, University of London, told the Science Media Centre that: “Many of the considered confounders that were adjusted for may actually represent mediating mechanisms.  For example, vegetable consumption may reduce cardiovascular risk by lowering blood pressure and bodyweight, and improving glycaemic control. 

“By adjusting for such traits, the authors may inadvertently be negating some of the mechanisms by which vegetable consumption is exerting beneficial effects.”

Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, said: “The conclusion that cooked vegetables may not be effective in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease may not be justified, especially as the group consuming the highest levels of vegetables were more likely to be receiving medication for high blood cholesterol and high blood pressure (i.e. this group was at higher risk of CVD), compared with those consuming the lowest intake.” He added: “These findings should not be taken to indicate that eating more vegetables has no benefit to health, especially cardiovascular health.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, agreed. “In short, this paper should in no way change advice to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day,” he said. “Many living in the U.K. fall well short of this, sadly, and more needs to be done to encourage better intake of vegetables.

“In fact, I suspect we may have underestimated the importance of a healthy diet on health and disease in general.”

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

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Young adults hospitalized for a stroke are much more likely to be admitted for a recurrent stroke if they have cannabis use disorder, new observational research suggests. “Our analysis shows young marijuana users with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack remain at significantly high risk for future strokes,” said lead study author Akhil Jain, MD, a resident physician at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania.

“It’s essential to raise awareness among young adults about the impact of chronic habitual use of marijuana, especially if they have established cardiovascular risk factors or previous stroke.”

The study will be presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

An increasing number of jurisdictions are allowing marijuana use. To date, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis use, the investigators noted.

Research suggests cannabis use disorder – defined as the chronic habitual use of cannabis – is more prevalent in the young adult population. But Dr. Jain said the population of marijuana users is “a changing dynamic.”

Cannabis use has been linked to an increased risk for first-time stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Traditional stroke risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, and diseases related to blood vessels or blood circulation, including atherosclerosis.

Young adults might have additional stroke risk factors, such as behavioral habits like substance abuse, low physical activity, and smoking, oral contraceptives use among females, and brain infections, especially in the immunocompromised, said Dr. Jain.

Research from the American Heart Association shows stroke rates are increasing among adults 18 to 45 years of age. Each year, young adults account for up to 15% of strokes in the United States.

Prevalence and risk for recurrent stroke in patients with previous stroke or TIA in cannabis users have not been clearly established, the researchers pointed out.

A higher rate of recurrent stroke

For this new study, Dr. Jain and colleagues used data from the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017. They identified hospitalizations among young adults 18 to 45 years of age with a previous history of stroke or TIA.

They then grouped these patients into those with cannabis use disorder (4,690) and those without cannabis use disorder (156,700). The median age in both cohorts was 37 years.

The analysis did not include those who were considered in remission from cannabis use disorder.

Results showed that 6.9% of those with cannabis use disorder were hospitalized for a recurrent stroke, compared with 5.4% of those without cannabis use disorder (P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic factors (age, sex, race, household income), and pre-existing conditions, patients with cannabis use disorder were 48% more likely to be hospitalized for recurrent stroke than those without cannabis use disorder (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.71; P < .001).

Compared with the group without cannabis use disorder, the cannabis use disorder group had more men (55.2% vs. 40.2%), more African American people (44.6% vs. 37.2%), and more use of tobacco (73.9% vs. 39.6%) and alcohol (16.5% vs. 3.6%). They also had a greater percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and psychoses.

But a smaller percentage of those with cannabis use disorder had hypertension (51.3% vs. 55.6%; P = .001) and diabetes (16.3% vs. 22.7%; P < .001), which is an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Jain.

“We observed that even with a lower rate of cardiovascular risk factors, after controlling for all the risk factors, we still found the cannabis users had a higher rate of recurrent stroke.”

He noted this was a retrospective study without a control group. “If both groups had comparable hypertension, then this risk might actually be more evident,” said Dr. Jain. “We need a prospective study with comparable groups.”

Living in low-income neighborhoods and in northeast and southern regions of the United States was also more common in the cannabis use disorder group.
 

Hypothesis-generating research

The study did not investigate the possible mechanisms by which marijuana use might increase stroke risk, but Dr. Jain speculated that these could include factors such as impaired blood vessel function, changes in blood supply, an increased tendency of blood clotting, impaired energy production in brain cells, and an imbalance between molecules that harm healthy tissue and the antioxidant defenses that neutralize them.

As cannabis use may pose a different risk for a new stroke, as opposed a previous stroke, Dr. Jain said it would be interesting to study the amount of “residual function deficit” experienced with the first stroke.

The new study represents “foundational research” upon which other research teams can build, said Dr. Jain. “Our study is hypothesis-generating research for a future prospective randomized controlled trial.”

A limitation of the study is that it did not consider the effect of various doses, duration, and forms of cannabis abuse, or use of medicinal cannabis or other drugs.

Robert L. Page II, PharmD, professor, departments of clinical pharmacy and physical medicine/rehabilitation, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, provided a comment on this new research.

A cannabis use disorder diagnosis provides “specific criteria” with regard to chronicity of use and reflects “more of a physical and psychological dependence upon cannabis,” said Dr. Page, who chaired the writing group for the AHA 2020 cannabis and cardiovascular disease scientific statement.

He explained what sets people with cannabis use disorder apart from “run-of-the-mill” recreational cannabis users is that “these are individuals who use a cannabis product, whether it’s smoking it, vaping it, or consuming it via an edible, and are using it on a regular basis, in a chronic fashion.”

The study received no outside funding. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adults hospitalized for a stroke are much more likely to be admitted for a recurrent stroke if they have cannabis use disorder, new observational research suggests. “Our analysis shows young marijuana users with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack remain at significantly high risk for future strokes,” said lead study author Akhil Jain, MD, a resident physician at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania.

“It’s essential to raise awareness among young adults about the impact of chronic habitual use of marijuana, especially if they have established cardiovascular risk factors or previous stroke.”

The study will be presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

An increasing number of jurisdictions are allowing marijuana use. To date, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis use, the investigators noted.

Research suggests cannabis use disorder – defined as the chronic habitual use of cannabis – is more prevalent in the young adult population. But Dr. Jain said the population of marijuana users is “a changing dynamic.”

Cannabis use has been linked to an increased risk for first-time stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Traditional stroke risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, and diseases related to blood vessels or blood circulation, including atherosclerosis.

Young adults might have additional stroke risk factors, such as behavioral habits like substance abuse, low physical activity, and smoking, oral contraceptives use among females, and brain infections, especially in the immunocompromised, said Dr. Jain.

Research from the American Heart Association shows stroke rates are increasing among adults 18 to 45 years of age. Each year, young adults account for up to 15% of strokes in the United States.

Prevalence and risk for recurrent stroke in patients with previous stroke or TIA in cannabis users have not been clearly established, the researchers pointed out.

A higher rate of recurrent stroke

For this new study, Dr. Jain and colleagues used data from the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017. They identified hospitalizations among young adults 18 to 45 years of age with a previous history of stroke or TIA.

They then grouped these patients into those with cannabis use disorder (4,690) and those without cannabis use disorder (156,700). The median age in both cohorts was 37 years.

The analysis did not include those who were considered in remission from cannabis use disorder.

Results showed that 6.9% of those with cannabis use disorder were hospitalized for a recurrent stroke, compared with 5.4% of those without cannabis use disorder (P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic factors (age, sex, race, household income), and pre-existing conditions, patients with cannabis use disorder were 48% more likely to be hospitalized for recurrent stroke than those without cannabis use disorder (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.71; P < .001).

Compared with the group without cannabis use disorder, the cannabis use disorder group had more men (55.2% vs. 40.2%), more African American people (44.6% vs. 37.2%), and more use of tobacco (73.9% vs. 39.6%) and alcohol (16.5% vs. 3.6%). They also had a greater percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and psychoses.

But a smaller percentage of those with cannabis use disorder had hypertension (51.3% vs. 55.6%; P = .001) and diabetes (16.3% vs. 22.7%; P < .001), which is an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Jain.

“We observed that even with a lower rate of cardiovascular risk factors, after controlling for all the risk factors, we still found the cannabis users had a higher rate of recurrent stroke.”

He noted this was a retrospective study without a control group. “If both groups had comparable hypertension, then this risk might actually be more evident,” said Dr. Jain. “We need a prospective study with comparable groups.”

Living in low-income neighborhoods and in northeast and southern regions of the United States was also more common in the cannabis use disorder group.
 

Hypothesis-generating research

The study did not investigate the possible mechanisms by which marijuana use might increase stroke risk, but Dr. Jain speculated that these could include factors such as impaired blood vessel function, changes in blood supply, an increased tendency of blood clotting, impaired energy production in brain cells, and an imbalance between molecules that harm healthy tissue and the antioxidant defenses that neutralize them.

As cannabis use may pose a different risk for a new stroke, as opposed a previous stroke, Dr. Jain said it would be interesting to study the amount of “residual function deficit” experienced with the first stroke.

The new study represents “foundational research” upon which other research teams can build, said Dr. Jain. “Our study is hypothesis-generating research for a future prospective randomized controlled trial.”

A limitation of the study is that it did not consider the effect of various doses, duration, and forms of cannabis abuse, or use of medicinal cannabis or other drugs.

Robert L. Page II, PharmD, professor, departments of clinical pharmacy and physical medicine/rehabilitation, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, provided a comment on this new research.

A cannabis use disorder diagnosis provides “specific criteria” with regard to chronicity of use and reflects “more of a physical and psychological dependence upon cannabis,” said Dr. Page, who chaired the writing group for the AHA 2020 cannabis and cardiovascular disease scientific statement.

He explained what sets people with cannabis use disorder apart from “run-of-the-mill” recreational cannabis users is that “these are individuals who use a cannabis product, whether it’s smoking it, vaping it, or consuming it via an edible, and are using it on a regular basis, in a chronic fashion.”

The study received no outside funding. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adults hospitalized for a stroke are much more likely to be admitted for a recurrent stroke if they have cannabis use disorder, new observational research suggests. “Our analysis shows young marijuana users with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack remain at significantly high risk for future strokes,” said lead study author Akhil Jain, MD, a resident physician at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania.

“It’s essential to raise awareness among young adults about the impact of chronic habitual use of marijuana, especially if they have established cardiovascular risk factors or previous stroke.”

The study will be presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

An increasing number of jurisdictions are allowing marijuana use. To date, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis use, the investigators noted.

Research suggests cannabis use disorder – defined as the chronic habitual use of cannabis – is more prevalent in the young adult population. But Dr. Jain said the population of marijuana users is “a changing dynamic.”

Cannabis use has been linked to an increased risk for first-time stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Traditional stroke risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, and diseases related to blood vessels or blood circulation, including atherosclerosis.

Young adults might have additional stroke risk factors, such as behavioral habits like substance abuse, low physical activity, and smoking, oral contraceptives use among females, and brain infections, especially in the immunocompromised, said Dr. Jain.

Research from the American Heart Association shows stroke rates are increasing among adults 18 to 45 years of age. Each year, young adults account for up to 15% of strokes in the United States.

Prevalence and risk for recurrent stroke in patients with previous stroke or TIA in cannabis users have not been clearly established, the researchers pointed out.

A higher rate of recurrent stroke

For this new study, Dr. Jain and colleagues used data from the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017. They identified hospitalizations among young adults 18 to 45 years of age with a previous history of stroke or TIA.

They then grouped these patients into those with cannabis use disorder (4,690) and those without cannabis use disorder (156,700). The median age in both cohorts was 37 years.

The analysis did not include those who were considered in remission from cannabis use disorder.

Results showed that 6.9% of those with cannabis use disorder were hospitalized for a recurrent stroke, compared with 5.4% of those without cannabis use disorder (P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic factors (age, sex, race, household income), and pre-existing conditions, patients with cannabis use disorder were 48% more likely to be hospitalized for recurrent stroke than those without cannabis use disorder (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.71; P < .001).

Compared with the group without cannabis use disorder, the cannabis use disorder group had more men (55.2% vs. 40.2%), more African American people (44.6% vs. 37.2%), and more use of tobacco (73.9% vs. 39.6%) and alcohol (16.5% vs. 3.6%). They also had a greater percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and psychoses.

But a smaller percentage of those with cannabis use disorder had hypertension (51.3% vs. 55.6%; P = .001) and diabetes (16.3% vs. 22.7%; P < .001), which is an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Jain.

“We observed that even with a lower rate of cardiovascular risk factors, after controlling for all the risk factors, we still found the cannabis users had a higher rate of recurrent stroke.”

He noted this was a retrospective study without a control group. “If both groups had comparable hypertension, then this risk might actually be more evident,” said Dr. Jain. “We need a prospective study with comparable groups.”

Living in low-income neighborhoods and in northeast and southern regions of the United States was also more common in the cannabis use disorder group.
 

Hypothesis-generating research

The study did not investigate the possible mechanisms by which marijuana use might increase stroke risk, but Dr. Jain speculated that these could include factors such as impaired blood vessel function, changes in blood supply, an increased tendency of blood clotting, impaired energy production in brain cells, and an imbalance between molecules that harm healthy tissue and the antioxidant defenses that neutralize them.

As cannabis use may pose a different risk for a new stroke, as opposed a previous stroke, Dr. Jain said it would be interesting to study the amount of “residual function deficit” experienced with the first stroke.

The new study represents “foundational research” upon which other research teams can build, said Dr. Jain. “Our study is hypothesis-generating research for a future prospective randomized controlled trial.”

A limitation of the study is that it did not consider the effect of various doses, duration, and forms of cannabis abuse, or use of medicinal cannabis or other drugs.

Robert L. Page II, PharmD, professor, departments of clinical pharmacy and physical medicine/rehabilitation, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, provided a comment on this new research.

A cannabis use disorder diagnosis provides “specific criteria” with regard to chronicity of use and reflects “more of a physical and psychological dependence upon cannabis,” said Dr. Page, who chaired the writing group for the AHA 2020 cannabis and cardiovascular disease scientific statement.

He explained what sets people with cannabis use disorder apart from “run-of-the-mill” recreational cannabis users is that “these are individuals who use a cannabis product, whether it’s smoking it, vaping it, or consuming it via an edible, and are using it on a regular basis, in a chronic fashion.”

The study received no outside funding. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Among healthy middle-aged men, those who were more anxious were more likely to develop high levels of multiple biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk over a 40-year follow-up in a new study.

“By middle adulthood, higher anxiety levels are associated with stable differences” in biomarkers of risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, and type 2 diabetes, which “are maintained into older ages,” the researchers wrote.

Anxious individuals “may experience deteriorations in cardiometabolic health earlier in life and remain on a stable trajectory of heightened risk into older ages,” they concluded.

The study, led by Lewina Lee, PhD, was published online Jan. 24, 2022, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Men who had higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of the study had consistently higher biological risk for cardiometabolic disease than less anxious men from midlife into old age,” Dr. Lee, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University, summarized in an email.

Clinicians may not screen for heart disease and diabetes, and/or only discuss lifestyle modifications when patients are older or have the first signs of disease, she added.

However, the study findings “suggest that worries and anxiety are associated with preclinical pathophysiological processes that tend to culminate in cardiometabolic disease” and show “the importance of screening for mental health difficulties, such as worries and anxiety, in men as early as in their 30s and 40s,” she stressed.

Since most of the men were White (97%) and veterans (94%), “it would be important for future studies to evaluate if these associations exist among women, people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, and in more socioeconomically varying samples, and to consider how anxiety may relate to the development of cardiometabolic risk in much younger individuals than those in our study,” Dr. Lee said in a press release from the American Heart Association.

“This study adds to the growing body of research that link psychological health to cardiovascular risk,” Glenn N. Levine, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“We know that factors such as depression and stress can increase cardiac risk; this study further supports that anxiety can as well,” added Dr. Levine, chief of cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston.

“Everyone experiences some anxiety in their life,” he added. However, “if a provider senses that a patient’s anxiety is far beyond the ‘normal’ that we all have from time to time, and it is seemingly adversely impacting both their psychological and physical health, it would be reasonable to suggest to the patient that it might be useful to speak with a mental health professional, and if the patient is receptive, to then make a formal consultation or referral,” said Dr. Levine, who was writing group chair of a recent AHA Scientific Statement on mind-heart-body connection.
 

Neuroticism and worry

Several studies have linked anxiety to a greater risk of cardiometabolic disease onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote, but it is unclear if anxious individuals have a steadily worsening risk as they age, or if they have a higher risk in middle age, which stays the same in older age.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from 1561 men who were seen at the VA Boston outpatient clinic and did not have CAD, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or cancer when they enrolled in the Normative Aging Study.

The men had a mean age of 53 years (range, 33-84) in 1975 and were followed until 2015 or until dropout from the study or death.

At baseline, the study participants filled in the Eysenck Personality Inventory, which assesses neuroticism, and also responded to a scale indicating how much they worry about 20 issues (excluding health).

“Neuroticism,” the researchers explained, “is a tendency to perceive experiences as threatening, feel that challenges are uncontrollable, and experience frequent and disproportionately intense negative emotions,” such as fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger, “across many situations.”

“Worry refers to attempts to solve a problem where future outcome is uncertain and potentially positive or negative,” Dr. Lee noted. Although worry can be healthy and lead to constructive solutions, “it may be unhealthy, especially when it becomes uncontrollable and interferes with day-to-day functioning.”

Of note, in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term neurosis from its diagnostic manual. What was previously called neurosis is included as part of generalized anxiety disorder; GAD also encompasses excessive worry.
 

Cardiometabolic risk from midlife to old age

The men in the current study had on-site physical examinations every 3-5 years.

The researchers calculated the men’s cardiometabolic risk score (from 0 to 7) by assigning 1 point each for the following: systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 85 mm Hg, total cholesterol of at least 240 mg/dL, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dL, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, glucose of at least 100 mg/dL, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of at least 14 mm/hour.

Alternatively, patients were assigned a point each for taking medication that could affect these markers (except for body mass index).

Overall, on average, at baseline, the men had a cardiometabolic risk score of 2.9. From age 33-65, this score increased to 3.8, and then it did not increase as much later on.

That is, the cardiometabolic risk score increased by 0.8 per decade until age 65, followed by a slower increase of 0.5 per decade.

At all ages, men with higher levels of neuroticism or worry had a higher cardiometabolic risk score

Each additional standard deviation of neuroticism was associated with a 13% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up, after adjusting for age, demographics, and family history of CAD, but the relationship was attenuated after also adjusting for health behaviors (for example, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and past-year physician visit at baseline).

Similarly, each additional standard deviation of worry was associated with a 10% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up after the same adjustments, and was also no longer significantly different after the same further adjustments.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and a Senior Research Career Scientist Award from the Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Normative Aging Study is a research component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center and is supported by the VA Cooperative Studies Program/Epidemiological Research Centers. The study authors and Dr. Levine disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among healthy middle-aged men, those who were more anxious were more likely to develop high levels of multiple biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk over a 40-year follow-up in a new study.

“By middle adulthood, higher anxiety levels are associated with stable differences” in biomarkers of risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, and type 2 diabetes, which “are maintained into older ages,” the researchers wrote.

Anxious individuals “may experience deteriorations in cardiometabolic health earlier in life and remain on a stable trajectory of heightened risk into older ages,” they concluded.

The study, led by Lewina Lee, PhD, was published online Jan. 24, 2022, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Men who had higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of the study had consistently higher biological risk for cardiometabolic disease than less anxious men from midlife into old age,” Dr. Lee, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University, summarized in an email.

Clinicians may not screen for heart disease and diabetes, and/or only discuss lifestyle modifications when patients are older or have the first signs of disease, she added.

However, the study findings “suggest that worries and anxiety are associated with preclinical pathophysiological processes that tend to culminate in cardiometabolic disease” and show “the importance of screening for mental health difficulties, such as worries and anxiety, in men as early as in their 30s and 40s,” she stressed.

Since most of the men were White (97%) and veterans (94%), “it would be important for future studies to evaluate if these associations exist among women, people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, and in more socioeconomically varying samples, and to consider how anxiety may relate to the development of cardiometabolic risk in much younger individuals than those in our study,” Dr. Lee said in a press release from the American Heart Association.

“This study adds to the growing body of research that link psychological health to cardiovascular risk,” Glenn N. Levine, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“We know that factors such as depression and stress can increase cardiac risk; this study further supports that anxiety can as well,” added Dr. Levine, chief of cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston.

“Everyone experiences some anxiety in their life,” he added. However, “if a provider senses that a patient’s anxiety is far beyond the ‘normal’ that we all have from time to time, and it is seemingly adversely impacting both their psychological and physical health, it would be reasonable to suggest to the patient that it might be useful to speak with a mental health professional, and if the patient is receptive, to then make a formal consultation or referral,” said Dr. Levine, who was writing group chair of a recent AHA Scientific Statement on mind-heart-body connection.
 

Neuroticism and worry

Several studies have linked anxiety to a greater risk of cardiometabolic disease onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote, but it is unclear if anxious individuals have a steadily worsening risk as they age, or if they have a higher risk in middle age, which stays the same in older age.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from 1561 men who were seen at the VA Boston outpatient clinic and did not have CAD, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or cancer when they enrolled in the Normative Aging Study.

The men had a mean age of 53 years (range, 33-84) in 1975 and were followed until 2015 or until dropout from the study or death.

At baseline, the study participants filled in the Eysenck Personality Inventory, which assesses neuroticism, and also responded to a scale indicating how much they worry about 20 issues (excluding health).

“Neuroticism,” the researchers explained, “is a tendency to perceive experiences as threatening, feel that challenges are uncontrollable, and experience frequent and disproportionately intense negative emotions,” such as fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger, “across many situations.”

“Worry refers to attempts to solve a problem where future outcome is uncertain and potentially positive or negative,” Dr. Lee noted. Although worry can be healthy and lead to constructive solutions, “it may be unhealthy, especially when it becomes uncontrollable and interferes with day-to-day functioning.”

Of note, in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term neurosis from its diagnostic manual. What was previously called neurosis is included as part of generalized anxiety disorder; GAD also encompasses excessive worry.
 

Cardiometabolic risk from midlife to old age

The men in the current study had on-site physical examinations every 3-5 years.

The researchers calculated the men’s cardiometabolic risk score (from 0 to 7) by assigning 1 point each for the following: systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 85 mm Hg, total cholesterol of at least 240 mg/dL, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dL, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, glucose of at least 100 mg/dL, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of at least 14 mm/hour.

Alternatively, patients were assigned a point each for taking medication that could affect these markers (except for body mass index).

Overall, on average, at baseline, the men had a cardiometabolic risk score of 2.9. From age 33-65, this score increased to 3.8, and then it did not increase as much later on.

That is, the cardiometabolic risk score increased by 0.8 per decade until age 65, followed by a slower increase of 0.5 per decade.

At all ages, men with higher levels of neuroticism or worry had a higher cardiometabolic risk score

Each additional standard deviation of neuroticism was associated with a 13% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up, after adjusting for age, demographics, and family history of CAD, but the relationship was attenuated after also adjusting for health behaviors (for example, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and past-year physician visit at baseline).

Similarly, each additional standard deviation of worry was associated with a 10% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up after the same adjustments, and was also no longer significantly different after the same further adjustments.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and a Senior Research Career Scientist Award from the Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Normative Aging Study is a research component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center and is supported by the VA Cooperative Studies Program/Epidemiological Research Centers. The study authors and Dr. Levine disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among healthy middle-aged men, those who were more anxious were more likely to develop high levels of multiple biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk over a 40-year follow-up in a new study.

“By middle adulthood, higher anxiety levels are associated with stable differences” in biomarkers of risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, and type 2 diabetes, which “are maintained into older ages,” the researchers wrote.

Anxious individuals “may experience deteriorations in cardiometabolic health earlier in life and remain on a stable trajectory of heightened risk into older ages,” they concluded.

The study, led by Lewina Lee, PhD, was published online Jan. 24, 2022, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Men who had higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of the study had consistently higher biological risk for cardiometabolic disease than less anxious men from midlife into old age,” Dr. Lee, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University, summarized in an email.

Clinicians may not screen for heart disease and diabetes, and/or only discuss lifestyle modifications when patients are older or have the first signs of disease, she added.

However, the study findings “suggest that worries and anxiety are associated with preclinical pathophysiological processes that tend to culminate in cardiometabolic disease” and show “the importance of screening for mental health difficulties, such as worries and anxiety, in men as early as in their 30s and 40s,” she stressed.

Since most of the men were White (97%) and veterans (94%), “it would be important for future studies to evaluate if these associations exist among women, people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, and in more socioeconomically varying samples, and to consider how anxiety may relate to the development of cardiometabolic risk in much younger individuals than those in our study,” Dr. Lee said in a press release from the American Heart Association.

“This study adds to the growing body of research that link psychological health to cardiovascular risk,” Glenn N. Levine, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“We know that factors such as depression and stress can increase cardiac risk; this study further supports that anxiety can as well,” added Dr. Levine, chief of cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston.

“Everyone experiences some anxiety in their life,” he added. However, “if a provider senses that a patient’s anxiety is far beyond the ‘normal’ that we all have from time to time, and it is seemingly adversely impacting both their psychological and physical health, it would be reasonable to suggest to the patient that it might be useful to speak with a mental health professional, and if the patient is receptive, to then make a formal consultation or referral,” said Dr. Levine, who was writing group chair of a recent AHA Scientific Statement on mind-heart-body connection.
 

Neuroticism and worry

Several studies have linked anxiety to a greater risk of cardiometabolic disease onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote, but it is unclear if anxious individuals have a steadily worsening risk as they age, or if they have a higher risk in middle age, which stays the same in older age.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from 1561 men who were seen at the VA Boston outpatient clinic and did not have CAD, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or cancer when they enrolled in the Normative Aging Study.

The men had a mean age of 53 years (range, 33-84) in 1975 and were followed until 2015 or until dropout from the study or death.

At baseline, the study participants filled in the Eysenck Personality Inventory, which assesses neuroticism, and also responded to a scale indicating how much they worry about 20 issues (excluding health).

“Neuroticism,” the researchers explained, “is a tendency to perceive experiences as threatening, feel that challenges are uncontrollable, and experience frequent and disproportionately intense negative emotions,” such as fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger, “across many situations.”

“Worry refers to attempts to solve a problem where future outcome is uncertain and potentially positive or negative,” Dr. Lee noted. Although worry can be healthy and lead to constructive solutions, “it may be unhealthy, especially when it becomes uncontrollable and interferes with day-to-day functioning.”

Of note, in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term neurosis from its diagnostic manual. What was previously called neurosis is included as part of generalized anxiety disorder; GAD also encompasses excessive worry.
 

Cardiometabolic risk from midlife to old age

The men in the current study had on-site physical examinations every 3-5 years.

The researchers calculated the men’s cardiometabolic risk score (from 0 to 7) by assigning 1 point each for the following: systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 85 mm Hg, total cholesterol of at least 240 mg/dL, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dL, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, glucose of at least 100 mg/dL, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of at least 14 mm/hour.

Alternatively, patients were assigned a point each for taking medication that could affect these markers (except for body mass index).

Overall, on average, at baseline, the men had a cardiometabolic risk score of 2.9. From age 33-65, this score increased to 3.8, and then it did not increase as much later on.

That is, the cardiometabolic risk score increased by 0.8 per decade until age 65, followed by a slower increase of 0.5 per decade.

At all ages, men with higher levels of neuroticism or worry had a higher cardiometabolic risk score

Each additional standard deviation of neuroticism was associated with a 13% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up, after adjusting for age, demographics, and family history of CAD, but the relationship was attenuated after also adjusting for health behaviors (for example, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and past-year physician visit at baseline).

Similarly, each additional standard deviation of worry was associated with a 10% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up after the same adjustments, and was also no longer significantly different after the same further adjustments.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and a Senior Research Career Scientist Award from the Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Normative Aging Study is a research component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center and is supported by the VA Cooperative Studies Program/Epidemiological Research Centers. The study authors and Dr. Levine disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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