CAD & Atherosclerosis

Based on a large registry, there appears to be no adverse consequences for same-day discharge following an elective percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCI), according to an analysis of a nationwide registry.

“Our data suggest there has been no negative impact on patient outcomes as a result of increasing use of same-day discharge,” lead investigator Steven M. Bradley, MD, said in an interview.

The analysis was based on data on 819,091 patients who underwent an elective PCI procedure during July 2009–December 2017 in the National CathPCI Registry. During this period, the proportion of elective PCIs performed with same-day discharge rose from 4.5% to 28.6%, a fivefold gain, according to Dr. Bradley, an associate cardiologist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute, and colleagues.

Within this study, outcomes in 212,369 patients were analyzed through a link to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. Despite the growth in same-day discharge PCIs over the study period, there was no change in 30-day mortality rates while the rate of 30-day rehospitalization fell after risk adjustment.

These data are considered to have a message for routine practice, particularly for those hospitals that have been slow to move to same-day discharge for elective PCI when lack of complications makes this appropriate.

However, “this does not mean same-day discharge is safe for all patients,” Dr. Bradley cautioned, but these data suggest “there is a clear opportunity at sites with low rates” to look for strategies that allow patients to recover at home, which is preferred by many patients and lowers costs.

In 2009, the first year in which the data were analyzed, there was relatively little variation in the rate of same day discharge for elective PCI among the 1,716 hospitals that contributed patients to the registry. At that point, almost all hospitals had rates below 10%, according to the report published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions on Aug 2, 2021 .

From 2011 onward, there were progressive gains at most hospitals, with an even steeper rise beginning in 2014. By 2017, even though some hospitals were still performing almost no same-day discharge PCIs, many were discharging up to 40%, and the outliers were discharging nearly all.

Expressed in interquartiles at the hospital level, the range climbed from 0.0% to 4.7% in 2009 and reached 4.5% to 41.0% by 2017. For 2017, relative to 2009, this produced an odds ratio for same-day discharge that was more than fourfold greater, after adjustment for year and access site.

Access site was an important variable. For those undergoing PCI with radial access, the median same-day discharge rates climbed from 21.8% in 2009 to 58.3% in 2017. Same-day discharge rates for elective PCI performed by femoral access, already lower in 2009, have consistently lagged. By 2017, the median rate of same-day discharge for those undergoing PCI by the femoral route was less than half of that associated with radial access.

Despite the faster rise in same-day discharge and radial access over the course of the study, these were not directly correlated. In 2017, 25% of sites performing PCI by radial access were still discharging fewer than 10% of patients on the same day as their elective PCI.

Several previous studies have also found that same-day discharge can be offered selectively after elective PCI without adversely affecting outcomes, according to multiple citations provided by the authors. The advantage of early discharge includes both convenience for the patient and lower costs, with some of the studies attempting to quantify savings. In one, it was estimated that per-case savings from performing radial-access elective PCI with same-day discharge was nearly $3,700 when compared with transfemoral access and an overnight stay.

Radial access key to same-day success

An accompanying editorial by Deepak Bhatt, MD, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBChB, who are both interventional cardiologists at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, generally agreed with the premise that these data support judicious use of same-day discharge for elective PCI.

They pointed out limitations in the study, including its retrospective design and the inability to look at important outcomes other than mortality and 30-day rehospitalization, such as bleeding, that are relevant to the safety of early discharge, but concluded that same-day discharge, as well as radial access procedures, are underused.

“For uncomplicated elective PCI, we should aim for same-day discharge,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. He linked this to radial access.

“Radial access certainly facilitates same-day discharge, though even beyond that aspect, it should be the default route of vascular access whenever possible,” Dr. Bhatt said. Yet he was careful to say that neither same-day discharge nor radial access can be recommended in all patients. While the operator needs “to be comfortable” with a radial access approach, there are multiple factors that might preclude early discharge.

“Of course, if a long procedure, high contrast use, bleeding, a long travel distance to get home, etc. [are considered], then an overnight stay may be warranted,” he said.

Dr. Bradley advised centers planning to increase their same-day discharge rates for elective PCI to use a systematic approach.

“Sites should identify areas for opportunity in the use of same-day discharge and then track the implications on patient outcomes to ensure that the approach being used maintains high-quality care,” he said.

Dr. Bradley reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from a large number of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, including those that make products relevant to PCI.

Based on a large registry, there appears to be no adverse consequences for same-day discharge following an elective percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCI), according to an analysis of a nationwide registry.

“Our data suggest there has been no negative impact on patient outcomes as a result of increasing use of same-day discharge,” lead investigator Steven M. Bradley, MD, said in an interview.

The analysis was based on data on 819,091 patients who underwent an elective PCI procedure during July 2009–December 2017 in the National CathPCI Registry. During this period, the proportion of elective PCIs performed with same-day discharge rose from 4.5% to 28.6%, a fivefold gain, according to Dr. Bradley, an associate cardiologist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute, and colleagues.

Within this study, outcomes in 212,369 patients were analyzed through a link to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. Despite the growth in same-day discharge PCIs over the study period, there was no change in 30-day mortality rates while the rate of 30-day rehospitalization fell after risk adjustment.

These data are considered to have a message for routine practice, particularly for those hospitals that have been slow to move to same-day discharge for elective PCI when lack of complications makes this appropriate.

However, “this does not mean same-day discharge is safe for all patients,” Dr. Bradley cautioned, but these data suggest “there is a clear opportunity at sites with low rates” to look for strategies that allow patients to recover at home, which is preferred by many patients and lowers costs.

In 2009, the first year in which the data were analyzed, there was relatively little variation in the rate of same day discharge for elective PCI among the 1,716 hospitals that contributed patients to the registry. At that point, almost all hospitals had rates below 10%, according to the report published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions on Aug 2, 2021 .

From 2011 onward, there were progressive gains at most hospitals, with an even steeper rise beginning in 2014. By 2017, even though some hospitals were still performing almost no same-day discharge PCIs, many were discharging up to 40%, and the outliers were discharging nearly all.

Expressed in interquartiles at the hospital level, the range climbed from 0.0% to 4.7% in 2009 and reached 4.5% to 41.0% by 2017. For 2017, relative to 2009, this produced an odds ratio for same-day discharge that was more than fourfold greater, after adjustment for year and access site.

Access site was an important variable. For those undergoing PCI with radial access, the median same-day discharge rates climbed from 21.8% in 2009 to 58.3% in 2017. Same-day discharge rates for elective PCI performed by femoral access, already lower in 2009, have consistently lagged. By 2017, the median rate of same-day discharge for those undergoing PCI by the femoral route was less than half of that associated with radial access.

Despite the faster rise in same-day discharge and radial access over the course of the study, these were not directly correlated. In 2017, 25% of sites performing PCI by radial access were still discharging fewer than 10% of patients on the same day as their elective PCI.

Several previous studies have also found that same-day discharge can be offered selectively after elective PCI without adversely affecting outcomes, according to multiple citations provided by the authors. The advantage of early discharge includes both convenience for the patient and lower costs, with some of the studies attempting to quantify savings. In one, it was estimated that per-case savings from performing radial-access elective PCI with same-day discharge was nearly $3,700 when compared with transfemoral access and an overnight stay.

Radial access key to same-day success

An accompanying editorial by Deepak Bhatt, MD, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBChB, who are both interventional cardiologists at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, generally agreed with the premise that these data support judicious use of same-day discharge for elective PCI.

They pointed out limitations in the study, including its retrospective design and the inability to look at important outcomes other than mortality and 30-day rehospitalization, such as bleeding, that are relevant to the safety of early discharge, but concluded that same-day discharge, as well as radial access procedures, are underused.

“For uncomplicated elective PCI, we should aim for same-day discharge,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. He linked this to radial access.

“Radial access certainly facilitates same-day discharge, though even beyond that aspect, it should be the default route of vascular access whenever possible,” Dr. Bhatt said. Yet he was careful to say that neither same-day discharge nor radial access can be recommended in all patients. While the operator needs “to be comfortable” with a radial access approach, there are multiple factors that might preclude early discharge.

“Of course, if a long procedure, high contrast use, bleeding, a long travel distance to get home, etc. [are considered], then an overnight stay may be warranted,” he said.

Dr. Bradley advised centers planning to increase their same-day discharge rates for elective PCI to use a systematic approach.

“Sites should identify areas for opportunity in the use of same-day discharge and then track the implications on patient outcomes to ensure that the approach being used maintains high-quality care,” he said.

Dr. Bradley reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from a large number of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, including those that make products relevant to PCI.

Based on a large registry, there appears to be no adverse consequences for same-day discharge following an elective percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCI), according to an analysis of a nationwide registry.

“Our data suggest there has been no negative impact on patient outcomes as a result of increasing use of same-day discharge,” lead investigator Steven M. Bradley, MD, said in an interview.

The analysis was based on data on 819,091 patients who underwent an elective PCI procedure during July 2009–December 2017 in the National CathPCI Registry. During this period, the proportion of elective PCIs performed with same-day discharge rose from 4.5% to 28.6%, a fivefold gain, according to Dr. Bradley, an associate cardiologist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute, and colleagues.

Within this study, outcomes in 212,369 patients were analyzed through a link to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. Despite the growth in same-day discharge PCIs over the study period, there was no change in 30-day mortality rates while the rate of 30-day rehospitalization fell after risk adjustment.

These data are considered to have a message for routine practice, particularly for those hospitals that have been slow to move to same-day discharge for elective PCI when lack of complications makes this appropriate.

However, “this does not mean same-day discharge is safe for all patients,” Dr. Bradley cautioned, but these data suggest “there is a clear opportunity at sites with low rates” to look for strategies that allow patients to recover at home, which is preferred by many patients and lowers costs.

In 2009, the first year in which the data were analyzed, there was relatively little variation in the rate of same day discharge for elective PCI among the 1,716 hospitals that contributed patients to the registry. At that point, almost all hospitals had rates below 10%, according to the report published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions on Aug 2, 2021 .

From 2011 onward, there were progressive gains at most hospitals, with an even steeper rise beginning in 2014. By 2017, even though some hospitals were still performing almost no same-day discharge PCIs, many were discharging up to 40%, and the outliers were discharging nearly all.

Expressed in interquartiles at the hospital level, the range climbed from 0.0% to 4.7% in 2009 and reached 4.5% to 41.0% by 2017. For 2017, relative to 2009, this produced an odds ratio for same-day discharge that was more than fourfold greater, after adjustment for year and access site.

Access site was an important variable. For those undergoing PCI with radial access, the median same-day discharge rates climbed from 21.8% in 2009 to 58.3% in 2017. Same-day discharge rates for elective PCI performed by femoral access, already lower in 2009, have consistently lagged. By 2017, the median rate of same-day discharge for those undergoing PCI by the femoral route was less than half of that associated with radial access.

Despite the faster rise in same-day discharge and radial access over the course of the study, these were not directly correlated. In 2017, 25% of sites performing PCI by radial access were still discharging fewer than 10% of patients on the same day as their elective PCI.

Several previous studies have also found that same-day discharge can be offered selectively after elective PCI without adversely affecting outcomes, according to multiple citations provided by the authors. The advantage of early discharge includes both convenience for the patient and lower costs, with some of the studies attempting to quantify savings. In one, it was estimated that per-case savings from performing radial-access elective PCI with same-day discharge was nearly $3,700 when compared with transfemoral access and an overnight stay.

Radial access key to same-day success

An accompanying editorial by Deepak Bhatt, MD, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBChB, who are both interventional cardiologists at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, generally agreed with the premise that these data support judicious use of same-day discharge for elective PCI.

They pointed out limitations in the study, including its retrospective design and the inability to look at important outcomes other than mortality and 30-day rehospitalization, such as bleeding, that are relevant to the safety of early discharge, but concluded that same-day discharge, as well as radial access procedures, are underused.

“For uncomplicated elective PCI, we should aim for same-day discharge,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. He linked this to radial access.

“Radial access certainly facilitates same-day discharge, though even beyond that aspect, it should be the default route of vascular access whenever possible,” Dr. Bhatt said. Yet he was careful to say that neither same-day discharge nor radial access can be recommended in all patients. While the operator needs “to be comfortable” with a radial access approach, there are multiple factors that might preclude early discharge.

“Of course, if a long procedure, high contrast use, bleeding, a long travel distance to get home, etc. [are considered], then an overnight stay may be warranted,” he said.

Dr. Bradley advised centers planning to increase their same-day discharge rates for elective PCI to use a systematic approach.

“Sites should identify areas for opportunity in the use of same-day discharge and then track the implications on patient outcomes to ensure that the approach being used maintains high-quality care,” he said.

Dr. Bradley reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from a large number of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, including those that make products relevant to PCI.

The long list of side effects that follow ads for newer expensive drugs to treat type 2 diabetes sometimes include an unusual warning: They might cause weight loss. That side effect is one that many people – especially those with type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity – may desperately want.

So it’s no surprise that some of the same drugs are being reformulated and renamed by manufacturers as a new obesity treatment. No longer limited to the crowded field of treatments for type 2 diabetes, which affects about 10% of Americans, they join the far smaller number of drugs for obesity, which affects 42% of Americans and is ready to be mined for profit.

One that recently hit the market – winning Food and Drug Administration approval in June – is Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (semaglutide), a higher-dose version of the company’s injectable diabetes drug, Ozempic.

Ozempic’s peppy ads suggest that people who use it might lose weight, but also include a disclaimer: that it “is not a weight-loss drug.” Now – with a new name – it is. And clinical trials showed using it leads to significant weight loss for many patients.

“People who go on this medication lose more weight than with any drug we’ve seen, ever,” said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved with any of the clinical trials.

But that leaves employers and insurers in the uncomfortable position of deciding if it’s worth it.

Wegovy’s monthly wholesale price tag – set at $1,349 – is about 58% more than Ozempic’s, although, the company pointed out, the drug’s injector pens contain more than twice as much of the active ingredient. Studies so far show that patients may need to take it indefinitely to maintain weight loss, translating to a tab that could top $323,000 over 20 years at the current price. Weight-loss treatments are not universally covered by insurance policies.

The arrival of this new class of weight-loss drugs – one from Lilly may soon follow – has created a thicket of issues for those who will pay for them. The decision is complicated by many unknowables concerning their long-term use and whether competition might eventually lower the price.

“The metric we try to use is value,” said James Gelfand, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large, self-insured employers. “If we pay for this drug, how much is this going to cost and how much value will it provide to the beneficiaries?”

Weight-loss treatments have had a lackluster past in this regard, with only modest results. Many employers and insurers likely remember Fen-Phen, a combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine that was pulled from the market in the late 1990s for causing heart valve problems.

New drugs like Wegovy, more effective but also pricier than previous weight-loss treatments, will add more fuel to that debate.

Past treatments were shown to prompt weight loss in the range of 5%-10% of body weight. But many had relatively serious or unpleasant side effects.

Wegovy, however, helped patients lose an average of 15% of their body weight over 68 weeks in the main clinical trial that led to its approval. A comparison group that got a placebo injection lost an average of 2.5% over the same period. On the high end, nearly a third of patients in the treatment group lost 20% or more. Both groups had counseling on diet and exercise.

Side effects, generally considered mild, included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. A few patients developed pancreatitis, a serious inflammation of the pancreas. Like the diabetes medication, the drug carries a warning about a potential risk of a type of thyroid cancer.

Weight loss in those taking Wegovy puts it close to the 20%-25% losses seen with bariatric surgery, said Stanford, and well above the 3%-4% seen with diet and other lifestyle changes alone.

Participants also saw reductions in their waistlines and improvements in their blood pressure and blood sugar levels, which may mean they won’t develop diabetes, said Sean Wharton, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor at York University in Toronto who was among the coauthors of the report outlining the results of the first clinical trial on Wegovy.

Since weight loss is known to reduce the risk of heart attack, high blood pressure and diabetes, might the new drug type be worth it?

Covering such treatment would be a sea change for Medicare, which specifically bars coverage for obesity medications or drugs for “anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain,” although it does pay for bariatric surgery. Pharmaceutical companies, patient advocates, and some medical professionals are backing proposed federal legislation to allow coverage. But the legislation, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, has not made progress despite being reintroduced every year since 2012, and sponsors are now asking federal officials instead to rewrite existing rules.

Private insurers will have to consider a cost-benefit analysis of adding Wegovy to their list of covered treatments, either broadly or with limits. Obesity was first recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, easing the path for insurance coverage, in 2013.

“Employers are going to have a bit of a challenge” deciding whether to add the benefit to insurance offerings, said Steve Pearson, founder and president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which provides cost-benefit analyses of medical treatments but has not yet looked at Wegovy.

The trade-offs are embodied in patients like Phylander Pannell, a 49-year-old Largo, Md., woman who said she lost 65 pounds in a clinical trial of Wegovy. That study gave the drug to all participants for the first 20 weeks, then randomly assigned patients to get either the drug or a placebo for the next 48 weeks to determine what happens when the medication is stopped. Only after the trial ended did she find out she was in the treatment group the entire time.

Her weight fell slowly at first, then ramped up, eventually bringing her 190-pound frame down to about 125. Pains in her joints eased; she felt better all around.

“I definitely feel the drug was it for me,” said Ms. Pannell, who also followed the trial’s guidance on diet and exercise.

The study found that both groups lost weight in the initial 20 weeks, but those who continued to get the drug lost an additional average of 7.9% of their body weight. Those who got a placebo gained back nearly 7%.

After the trial ended, and the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Ms. Pannell regained some weight and is now at 155. She is eager to get back on the medication and hopes her job-based insurance will cover it.

Many employers do cover obesity drugs. For example, about 40% of private employer plans include Novo Nordisk’s once-daily injection called Saxenda on their health plans, said Michael Bachner, Novo Nordisk’s director of media relations.

He said the $1,349-a-month wholesale acquisition price of Wegovy was determined by making it equivalent to that of Saxenda, which is less effective.

Still, that is more than the $851 monthly wholesale price of Ozempic. But, he pointed out, the recommended dosage of Wegovy is more than twice that of Ozempic. Four milligrams come in the Ozempic injector pens for the month, while Wegovy has 9.6.

“There’s more drug in the pen,” Mr. Bachner said. “That drives the price up.”

He added: “This is not a 20-year-old drug that we now have a new indication for and are pricing it higher. It’s a whole different clinical program,” which required new trials.

Now scientists, employers, physicians, and patients will have to decide whether the new drugs are worth it.

Earlier estimates – some commissioned by Novo Nordisk – of the potential cost of adding an obesity drug benefit to Medicare showed an overall reduction in spending when better health from the resulting weight loss was factored in.

Still, those earlier estimates considered much less expensive drugs, including a range of generic and branded drugs costing as little as $7 a month to more than $300, a small fraction of Wegovy’s cost.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The long list of side effects that follow ads for newer expensive drugs to treat type 2 diabetes sometimes include an unusual warning: They might cause weight loss. That side effect is one that many people – especially those with type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity – may desperately want.

So it’s no surprise that some of the same drugs are being reformulated and renamed by manufacturers as a new obesity treatment. No longer limited to the crowded field of treatments for type 2 diabetes, which affects about 10% of Americans, they join the far smaller number of drugs for obesity, which affects 42% of Americans and is ready to be mined for profit.

One that recently hit the market – winning Food and Drug Administration approval in June – is Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (semaglutide), a higher-dose version of the company’s injectable diabetes drug, Ozempic.

Ozempic’s peppy ads suggest that people who use it might lose weight, but also include a disclaimer: that it “is not a weight-loss drug.” Now – with a new name – it is. And clinical trials showed using it leads to significant weight loss for many patients.

“People who go on this medication lose more weight than with any drug we’ve seen, ever,” said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved with any of the clinical trials.

But that leaves employers and insurers in the uncomfortable position of deciding if it’s worth it.

Wegovy’s monthly wholesale price tag – set at $1,349 – is about 58% more than Ozempic’s, although, the company pointed out, the drug’s injector pens contain more than twice as much of the active ingredient. Studies so far show that patients may need to take it indefinitely to maintain weight loss, translating to a tab that could top $323,000 over 20 years at the current price. Weight-loss treatments are not universally covered by insurance policies.

The arrival of this new class of weight-loss drugs – one from Lilly may soon follow – has created a thicket of issues for those who will pay for them. The decision is complicated by many unknowables concerning their long-term use and whether competition might eventually lower the price.

“The metric we try to use is value,” said James Gelfand, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large, self-insured employers. “If we pay for this drug, how much is this going to cost and how much value will it provide to the beneficiaries?”

Weight-loss treatments have had a lackluster past in this regard, with only modest results. Many employers and insurers likely remember Fen-Phen, a combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine that was pulled from the market in the late 1990s for causing heart valve problems.

New drugs like Wegovy, more effective but also pricier than previous weight-loss treatments, will add more fuel to that debate.

Past treatments were shown to prompt weight loss in the range of 5%-10% of body weight. But many had relatively serious or unpleasant side effects.

Wegovy, however, helped patients lose an average of 15% of their body weight over 68 weeks in the main clinical trial that led to its approval. A comparison group that got a placebo injection lost an average of 2.5% over the same period. On the high end, nearly a third of patients in the treatment group lost 20% or more. Both groups had counseling on diet and exercise.

Side effects, generally considered mild, included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. A few patients developed pancreatitis, a serious inflammation of the pancreas. Like the diabetes medication, the drug carries a warning about a potential risk of a type of thyroid cancer.

Weight loss in those taking Wegovy puts it close to the 20%-25% losses seen with bariatric surgery, said Stanford, and well above the 3%-4% seen with diet and other lifestyle changes alone.

Participants also saw reductions in their waistlines and improvements in their blood pressure and blood sugar levels, which may mean they won’t develop diabetes, said Sean Wharton, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor at York University in Toronto who was among the coauthors of the report outlining the results of the first clinical trial on Wegovy.

Since weight loss is known to reduce the risk of heart attack, high blood pressure and diabetes, might the new drug type be worth it?

Covering such treatment would be a sea change for Medicare, which specifically bars coverage for obesity medications or drugs for “anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain,” although it does pay for bariatric surgery. Pharmaceutical companies, patient advocates, and some medical professionals are backing proposed federal legislation to allow coverage. But the legislation, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, has not made progress despite being reintroduced every year since 2012, and sponsors are now asking federal officials instead to rewrite existing rules.

Private insurers will have to consider a cost-benefit analysis of adding Wegovy to their list of covered treatments, either broadly or with limits. Obesity was first recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, easing the path for insurance coverage, in 2013.

“Employers are going to have a bit of a challenge” deciding whether to add the benefit to insurance offerings, said Steve Pearson, founder and president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which provides cost-benefit analyses of medical treatments but has not yet looked at Wegovy.

The trade-offs are embodied in patients like Phylander Pannell, a 49-year-old Largo, Md., woman who said she lost 65 pounds in a clinical trial of Wegovy. That study gave the drug to all participants for the first 20 weeks, then randomly assigned patients to get either the drug or a placebo for the next 48 weeks to determine what happens when the medication is stopped. Only after the trial ended did she find out she was in the treatment group the entire time.

Her weight fell slowly at first, then ramped up, eventually bringing her 190-pound frame down to about 125. Pains in her joints eased; she felt better all around.

“I definitely feel the drug was it for me,” said Ms. Pannell, who also followed the trial’s guidance on diet and exercise.

The study found that both groups lost weight in the initial 20 weeks, but those who continued to get the drug lost an additional average of 7.9% of their body weight. Those who got a placebo gained back nearly 7%.

After the trial ended, and the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Ms. Pannell regained some weight and is now at 155. She is eager to get back on the medication and hopes her job-based insurance will cover it.

Many employers do cover obesity drugs. For example, about 40% of private employer plans include Novo Nordisk’s once-daily injection called Saxenda on their health plans, said Michael Bachner, Novo Nordisk’s director of media relations.

He said the $1,349-a-month wholesale acquisition price of Wegovy was determined by making it equivalent to that of Saxenda, which is less effective.

Still, that is more than the $851 monthly wholesale price of Ozempic. But, he pointed out, the recommended dosage of Wegovy is more than twice that of Ozempic. Four milligrams come in the Ozempic injector pens for the month, while Wegovy has 9.6.

“There’s more drug in the pen,” Mr. Bachner said. “That drives the price up.”

He added: “This is not a 20-year-old drug that we now have a new indication for and are pricing it higher. It’s a whole different clinical program,” which required new trials.

Now scientists, employers, physicians, and patients will have to decide whether the new drugs are worth it.

Earlier estimates – some commissioned by Novo Nordisk – of the potential cost of adding an obesity drug benefit to Medicare showed an overall reduction in spending when better health from the resulting weight loss was factored in.

Still, those earlier estimates considered much less expensive drugs, including a range of generic and branded drugs costing as little as $7 a month to more than $300, a small fraction of Wegovy’s cost.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The long list of side effects that follow ads for newer expensive drugs to treat type 2 diabetes sometimes include an unusual warning: They might cause weight loss. That side effect is one that many people – especially those with type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity – may desperately want.

So it’s no surprise that some of the same drugs are being reformulated and renamed by manufacturers as a new obesity treatment. No longer limited to the crowded field of treatments for type 2 diabetes, which affects about 10% of Americans, they join the far smaller number of drugs for obesity, which affects 42% of Americans and is ready to be mined for profit.

One that recently hit the market – winning Food and Drug Administration approval in June – is Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (semaglutide), a higher-dose version of the company’s injectable diabetes drug, Ozempic.

Ozempic’s peppy ads suggest that people who use it might lose weight, but also include a disclaimer: that it “is not a weight-loss drug.” Now – with a new name – it is. And clinical trials showed using it leads to significant weight loss for many patients.

“People who go on this medication lose more weight than with any drug we’ve seen, ever,” said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved with any of the clinical trials.

But that leaves employers and insurers in the uncomfortable position of deciding if it’s worth it.

Wegovy’s monthly wholesale price tag – set at $1,349 – is about 58% more than Ozempic’s, although, the company pointed out, the drug’s injector pens contain more than twice as much of the active ingredient. Studies so far show that patients may need to take it indefinitely to maintain weight loss, translating to a tab that could top $323,000 over 20 years at the current price. Weight-loss treatments are not universally covered by insurance policies.

The arrival of this new class of weight-loss drugs – one from Lilly may soon follow – has created a thicket of issues for those who will pay for them. The decision is complicated by many unknowables concerning their long-term use and whether competition might eventually lower the price.

“The metric we try to use is value,” said James Gelfand, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large, self-insured employers. “If we pay for this drug, how much is this going to cost and how much value will it provide to the beneficiaries?”

Weight-loss treatments have had a lackluster past in this regard, with only modest results. Many employers and insurers likely remember Fen-Phen, a combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine that was pulled from the market in the late 1990s for causing heart valve problems.

New drugs like Wegovy, more effective but also pricier than previous weight-loss treatments, will add more fuel to that debate.

Past treatments were shown to prompt weight loss in the range of 5%-10% of body weight. But many had relatively serious or unpleasant side effects.

Wegovy, however, helped patients lose an average of 15% of their body weight over 68 weeks in the main clinical trial that led to its approval. A comparison group that got a placebo injection lost an average of 2.5% over the same period. On the high end, nearly a third of patients in the treatment group lost 20% or more. Both groups had counseling on diet and exercise.

Side effects, generally considered mild, included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. A few patients developed pancreatitis, a serious inflammation of the pancreas. Like the diabetes medication, the drug carries a warning about a potential risk of a type of thyroid cancer.

Weight loss in those taking Wegovy puts it close to the 20%-25% losses seen with bariatric surgery, said Stanford, and well above the 3%-4% seen with diet and other lifestyle changes alone.

Participants also saw reductions in their waistlines and improvements in their blood pressure and blood sugar levels, which may mean they won’t develop diabetes, said Sean Wharton, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor at York University in Toronto who was among the coauthors of the report outlining the results of the first clinical trial on Wegovy.

Since weight loss is known to reduce the risk of heart attack, high blood pressure and diabetes, might the new drug type be worth it?

Covering such treatment would be a sea change for Medicare, which specifically bars coverage for obesity medications or drugs for “anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain,” although it does pay for bariatric surgery. Pharmaceutical companies, patient advocates, and some medical professionals are backing proposed federal legislation to allow coverage. But the legislation, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, has not made progress despite being reintroduced every year since 2012, and sponsors are now asking federal officials instead to rewrite existing rules.

Private insurers will have to consider a cost-benefit analysis of adding Wegovy to their list of covered treatments, either broadly or with limits. Obesity was first recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, easing the path for insurance coverage, in 2013.

“Employers are going to have a bit of a challenge” deciding whether to add the benefit to insurance offerings, said Steve Pearson, founder and president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which provides cost-benefit analyses of medical treatments but has not yet looked at Wegovy.

The trade-offs are embodied in patients like Phylander Pannell, a 49-year-old Largo, Md., woman who said she lost 65 pounds in a clinical trial of Wegovy. That study gave the drug to all participants for the first 20 weeks, then randomly assigned patients to get either the drug or a placebo for the next 48 weeks to determine what happens when the medication is stopped. Only after the trial ended did she find out she was in the treatment group the entire time.

Her weight fell slowly at first, then ramped up, eventually bringing her 190-pound frame down to about 125. Pains in her joints eased; she felt better all around.

“I definitely feel the drug was it for me,” said Ms. Pannell, who also followed the trial’s guidance on diet and exercise.

The study found that both groups lost weight in the initial 20 weeks, but those who continued to get the drug lost an additional average of 7.9% of their body weight. Those who got a placebo gained back nearly 7%.

After the trial ended, and the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Ms. Pannell regained some weight and is now at 155. She is eager to get back on the medication and hopes her job-based insurance will cover it.

Many employers do cover obesity drugs. For example, about 40% of private employer plans include Novo Nordisk’s once-daily injection called Saxenda on their health plans, said Michael Bachner, Novo Nordisk’s director of media relations.

He said the $1,349-a-month wholesale acquisition price of Wegovy was determined by making it equivalent to that of Saxenda, which is less effective.

Still, that is more than the $851 monthly wholesale price of Ozempic. But, he pointed out, the recommended dosage of Wegovy is more than twice that of Ozempic. Four milligrams come in the Ozempic injector pens for the month, while Wegovy has 9.6.

“There’s more drug in the pen,” Mr. Bachner said. “That drives the price up.”

He added: “This is not a 20-year-old drug that we now have a new indication for and are pricing it higher. It’s a whole different clinical program,” which required new trials.

Now scientists, employers, physicians, and patients will have to decide whether the new drugs are worth it.

Earlier estimates – some commissioned by Novo Nordisk – of the potential cost of adding an obesity drug benefit to Medicare showed an overall reduction in spending when better health from the resulting weight loss was factored in.

Still, those earlier estimates considered much less expensive drugs, including a range of generic and branded drugs costing as little as $7 a month to more than $300, a small fraction of Wegovy’s cost.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

An incidental diagnosis of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis in stroke-free individuals should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, according to the authors of a study identifying risk factors and vascular event risk in asymptomatic ICAS.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images Plus

That conclusion emerged from data collected on more than 1,000 stroke-free participants in NOMAS (Northern Manhattan Study), a trial that prospectively followed participants who underwent a brain magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) during 2003-2008.

In ICAS patients with stenosis of at least 70%, even with aggressive medical therapy, the annual stroke recurrence rate is 10%-20% in those with occlusions and at least three or more vascular risk factors. This high rate of recurrent vascular events in patients with stroke caused by ICAS warrants greater focus on primary prevention and targeted interventions for stroke-free individuals at highest risk for ICAS-related events, the investigators concluded.
 

Identify high-risk ICAS

Using NOMAS data, the investigators, led by Jose Gutierrez, MD, MPH, tested the hypothesis that stroke-free subjects at high risk of stroke and vascular events could be identified through the presence of asymptomatic ICAS. NOMAS is an ongoing, population-based epidemiologic study among randomly selected people with home telephones living in northern Manhattan.

During 2003-2008, investigators invited participants who were at least 50 years old, stroke free, and without contraindications to undergo brain MRA. The 1,211 study members were followed annually via telephone and in-person adjudication of events. A control group of 79 patients with no MRA was also identified with similar rates of hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and current smoking.

Mean age was about 71 years (59% female, 65% Hispanic, 45% any stenosis). At the time of MRA, 78% had hypertension, 25% had diabetes, 81% had hypercholesterolemia, and 11% were current smokers.

Researchers rated stenoses in 11 brain arteries as 0, with no stenosis; 1, with less than 50% stenosis or luminal irregularities; 2, 50%-69% stenosis; and 3, at least 70% stenosis or flow gap. Outcomes included vascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardioembolic stroke, intracranial artery disease stroke (which combined intracranial small and large artery disease strokes), and any vascular events (defined as a composite of vascular death, any stroke, or MI).
 

Greater stenosis denotes higher risk

Analysis found ICAS to be associated with older age (odds ratio, 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04), hypertension duration (OR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), higher number of glucose-lowering drugs (OR, 1.64 per each medication; 95% CI, 1.24-2.15), and HDL cholesterol(OR, 0.96 per mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Event risk was greater among participants with ICAS of at least 70% (5.5% annual risk of vascular events; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; compared with those with no ICAS), the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Furthermore, 80% of incident strokes initially classified as small artery disease occurred among individuals with evidence of any degree of ICAS at their baseline MRI, the investigators noted. They found also that individuals with ICAS who had a primary care physician at the time of their initial MRI had a lower risk of events. Frequent primary care visits, they observed, might imply greater control of risk factors and other unmeasured confounders, such as health literacy, health care trust, access, and availability.
 

Incidental ICAS should trigger vascular assessment

An incidental diagnosis of ICAS in stroke-free subjects should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, the investigators concluded. They commented also that prophylaxis of first-ever stroke at this asymptomatic stage “may magnify the societal benefits of vascular prevention and decrease stroke-related disability and vascular death in our communities.”

“The big gap in our knowledge,” Tanya N. Turan, MD, professor of neurology at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, wrote in an accompanying editorial “is understanding the pathophysiological triggers for an asymptomatic stenosis to become a high-risk symptomatic stenosis. Until that question is answered, screening for asymptomatic ICAS is unlikely to change management among patients with known vascular risk factors.” In an interview, she observed further that “MRI plaque imaging could be a useful research tool to see if certain plaque features in an asymptomatic lesion are high risk for causing stroke. If that were proven, then it would make more sense to screen for ICAS and develop specific therapeutic strategies targeting high-risk asymptomatic plaque.”
 

Focus on recurrent stroke misplaced

Dr. Gutierrez said in an interview: “In the stroke world, most of what we do focuses on preventing recurrent stroke. Nonetheless, three-fourths of strokes in this country are new strokes, so to me it doesn’t make much sense to spend most of our efforts and attention to prevent the smallest fractions of strokes that occur in our society.”

He stressed that “the first immediate application of our results is that if people having a brain MRA for other reasons are found to have incidental, and therefore asymptomatic, ICAS, then they should be aggressively treated for vascular risk factors.” Secondly, “we hope to identify the patients at the highest risk of prevalent ICAS before they have a stroke. Among them, a brain MRI/MRA evaluating the phenotype would determine how aggressively to treat LDL.”

Dr. Gutierrez, professor of neurology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that educating patients of their underlying high risk of events may have the effect of engaging them more in their own care. “There is evidence that actually showing people scans increases compliance and health literacy. It’s not yet standard of care, but we hope our future projects will help advance the field in the primary prevention direction,” he said.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

An incidental diagnosis of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis in stroke-free individuals should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, according to the authors of a study identifying risk factors and vascular event risk in asymptomatic ICAS.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images Plus

That conclusion emerged from data collected on more than 1,000 stroke-free participants in NOMAS (Northern Manhattan Study), a trial that prospectively followed participants who underwent a brain magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) during 2003-2008.

In ICAS patients with stenosis of at least 70%, even with aggressive medical therapy, the annual stroke recurrence rate is 10%-20% in those with occlusions and at least three or more vascular risk factors. This high rate of recurrent vascular events in patients with stroke caused by ICAS warrants greater focus on primary prevention and targeted interventions for stroke-free individuals at highest risk for ICAS-related events, the investigators concluded.
 

Identify high-risk ICAS

Using NOMAS data, the investigators, led by Jose Gutierrez, MD, MPH, tested the hypothesis that stroke-free subjects at high risk of stroke and vascular events could be identified through the presence of asymptomatic ICAS. NOMAS is an ongoing, population-based epidemiologic study among randomly selected people with home telephones living in northern Manhattan.

During 2003-2008, investigators invited participants who were at least 50 years old, stroke free, and without contraindications to undergo brain MRA. The 1,211 study members were followed annually via telephone and in-person adjudication of events. A control group of 79 patients with no MRA was also identified with similar rates of hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and current smoking.

Mean age was about 71 years (59% female, 65% Hispanic, 45% any stenosis). At the time of MRA, 78% had hypertension, 25% had diabetes, 81% had hypercholesterolemia, and 11% were current smokers.

Researchers rated stenoses in 11 brain arteries as 0, with no stenosis; 1, with less than 50% stenosis or luminal irregularities; 2, 50%-69% stenosis; and 3, at least 70% stenosis or flow gap. Outcomes included vascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardioembolic stroke, intracranial artery disease stroke (which combined intracranial small and large artery disease strokes), and any vascular events (defined as a composite of vascular death, any stroke, or MI).
 

Greater stenosis denotes higher risk

Analysis found ICAS to be associated with older age (odds ratio, 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04), hypertension duration (OR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), higher number of glucose-lowering drugs (OR, 1.64 per each medication; 95% CI, 1.24-2.15), and HDL cholesterol(OR, 0.96 per mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Event risk was greater among participants with ICAS of at least 70% (5.5% annual risk of vascular events; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; compared with those with no ICAS), the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Furthermore, 80% of incident strokes initially classified as small artery disease occurred among individuals with evidence of any degree of ICAS at their baseline MRI, the investigators noted. They found also that individuals with ICAS who had a primary care physician at the time of their initial MRI had a lower risk of events. Frequent primary care visits, they observed, might imply greater control of risk factors and other unmeasured confounders, such as health literacy, health care trust, access, and availability.
 

Incidental ICAS should trigger vascular assessment

An incidental diagnosis of ICAS in stroke-free subjects should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, the investigators concluded. They commented also that prophylaxis of first-ever stroke at this asymptomatic stage “may magnify the societal benefits of vascular prevention and decrease stroke-related disability and vascular death in our communities.”

“The big gap in our knowledge,” Tanya N. Turan, MD, professor of neurology at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, wrote in an accompanying editorial “is understanding the pathophysiological triggers for an asymptomatic stenosis to become a high-risk symptomatic stenosis. Until that question is answered, screening for asymptomatic ICAS is unlikely to change management among patients with known vascular risk factors.” In an interview, she observed further that “MRI plaque imaging could be a useful research tool to see if certain plaque features in an asymptomatic lesion are high risk for causing stroke. If that were proven, then it would make more sense to screen for ICAS and develop specific therapeutic strategies targeting high-risk asymptomatic plaque.”
 

Focus on recurrent stroke misplaced

Dr. Gutierrez said in an interview: “In the stroke world, most of what we do focuses on preventing recurrent stroke. Nonetheless, three-fourths of strokes in this country are new strokes, so to me it doesn’t make much sense to spend most of our efforts and attention to prevent the smallest fractions of strokes that occur in our society.”

He stressed that “the first immediate application of our results is that if people having a brain MRA for other reasons are found to have incidental, and therefore asymptomatic, ICAS, then they should be aggressively treated for vascular risk factors.” Secondly, “we hope to identify the patients at the highest risk of prevalent ICAS before they have a stroke. Among them, a brain MRI/MRA evaluating the phenotype would determine how aggressively to treat LDL.”

Dr. Gutierrez, professor of neurology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that educating patients of their underlying high risk of events may have the effect of engaging them more in their own care. “There is evidence that actually showing people scans increases compliance and health literacy. It’s not yet standard of care, but we hope our future projects will help advance the field in the primary prevention direction,” he said.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

An incidental diagnosis of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis in stroke-free individuals should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, according to the authors of a study identifying risk factors and vascular event risk in asymptomatic ICAS.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images Plus

That conclusion emerged from data collected on more than 1,000 stroke-free participants in NOMAS (Northern Manhattan Study), a trial that prospectively followed participants who underwent a brain magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) during 2003-2008.

In ICAS patients with stenosis of at least 70%, even with aggressive medical therapy, the annual stroke recurrence rate is 10%-20% in those with occlusions and at least three or more vascular risk factors. This high rate of recurrent vascular events in patients with stroke caused by ICAS warrants greater focus on primary prevention and targeted interventions for stroke-free individuals at highest risk for ICAS-related events, the investigators concluded.
 

Identify high-risk ICAS

Using NOMAS data, the investigators, led by Jose Gutierrez, MD, MPH, tested the hypothesis that stroke-free subjects at high risk of stroke and vascular events could be identified through the presence of asymptomatic ICAS. NOMAS is an ongoing, population-based epidemiologic study among randomly selected people with home telephones living in northern Manhattan.

During 2003-2008, investigators invited participants who were at least 50 years old, stroke free, and without contraindications to undergo brain MRA. The 1,211 study members were followed annually via telephone and in-person adjudication of events. A control group of 79 patients with no MRA was also identified with similar rates of hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and current smoking.

Mean age was about 71 years (59% female, 65% Hispanic, 45% any stenosis). At the time of MRA, 78% had hypertension, 25% had diabetes, 81% had hypercholesterolemia, and 11% were current smokers.

Researchers rated stenoses in 11 brain arteries as 0, with no stenosis; 1, with less than 50% stenosis or luminal irregularities; 2, 50%-69% stenosis; and 3, at least 70% stenosis or flow gap. Outcomes included vascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardioembolic stroke, intracranial artery disease stroke (which combined intracranial small and large artery disease strokes), and any vascular events (defined as a composite of vascular death, any stroke, or MI).
 

Greater stenosis denotes higher risk

Analysis found ICAS to be associated with older age (odds ratio, 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04), hypertension duration (OR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), higher number of glucose-lowering drugs (OR, 1.64 per each medication; 95% CI, 1.24-2.15), and HDL cholesterol(OR, 0.96 per mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Event risk was greater among participants with ICAS of at least 70% (5.5% annual risk of vascular events; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; compared with those with no ICAS), the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Furthermore, 80% of incident strokes initially classified as small artery disease occurred among individuals with evidence of any degree of ICAS at their baseline MRI, the investigators noted. They found also that individuals with ICAS who had a primary care physician at the time of their initial MRI had a lower risk of events. Frequent primary care visits, they observed, might imply greater control of risk factors and other unmeasured confounders, such as health literacy, health care trust, access, and availability.
 

Incidental ICAS should trigger vascular assessment

An incidental diagnosis of ICAS in stroke-free subjects should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, the investigators concluded. They commented also that prophylaxis of first-ever stroke at this asymptomatic stage “may magnify the societal benefits of vascular prevention and decrease stroke-related disability and vascular death in our communities.”

“The big gap in our knowledge,” Tanya N. Turan, MD, professor of neurology at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, wrote in an accompanying editorial “is understanding the pathophysiological triggers for an asymptomatic stenosis to become a high-risk symptomatic stenosis. Until that question is answered, screening for asymptomatic ICAS is unlikely to change management among patients with known vascular risk factors.” In an interview, she observed further that “MRI plaque imaging could be a useful research tool to see if certain plaque features in an asymptomatic lesion are high risk for causing stroke. If that were proven, then it would make more sense to screen for ICAS and develop specific therapeutic strategies targeting high-risk asymptomatic plaque.”
 

Focus on recurrent stroke misplaced

Dr. Gutierrez said in an interview: “In the stroke world, most of what we do focuses on preventing recurrent stroke. Nonetheless, three-fourths of strokes in this country are new strokes, so to me it doesn’t make much sense to spend most of our efforts and attention to prevent the smallest fractions of strokes that occur in our society.”

He stressed that “the first immediate application of our results is that if people having a brain MRA for other reasons are found to have incidental, and therefore asymptomatic, ICAS, then they should be aggressively treated for vascular risk factors.” Secondly, “we hope to identify the patients at the highest risk of prevalent ICAS before they have a stroke. Among them, a brain MRI/MRA evaluating the phenotype would determine how aggressively to treat LDL.”

Dr. Gutierrez, professor of neurology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that educating patients of their underlying high risk of events may have the effect of engaging them more in their own care. “There is evidence that actually showing people scans increases compliance and health literacy. It’s not yet standard of care, but we hope our future projects will help advance the field in the primary prevention direction,” he said.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

A new decision pathway for the management of hypertriglyceridemia, prompted by a large and growing body of evidence that elevated triglycerides to a targetable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), has been issued by the American College of Cardiology.

According to the chairman of the writing committee, Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, the recommendations amplify and update more than alter the hypertriglyceridemia treatment recommendations in the 2018 joint multisociety blood cholesterol guidelines issued in 2018.

This decision pathway, however, is focused on triglycerides alone.

“The previous guidelines included a section on strategies for addressing hypertriglyceridemia to reduce ASCVD risk, but this new decision pathway builds on the recommendations with more details and with additional information,” explained Dr. Virani, professor of medicine in the section of cardiovascular research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Within this newly published document, the definitions of hypertriglyceridemia and rationale for treatment are followed by detailed algorithms for four specific patient groups with varying triglyceride levels:

• Adults with ASCVD.
• Adults at least 40 years of age with diabetes but no ASCVD.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with no ASCVD or diabetes.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

“In the design of these algorithms, we made an active effort to make them suitable for use by primary care physicians as well as specialists,” said Dr. Virani. Despite “lots of boxes and arrows,” the flowcharts for each of these patient groups permit clinicians to follow the decision pathway without having to reread the text.

The common emphasis in all four algorithms is to begin by evaluating patients for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia, such as multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome and other diseases associated with elevated triglycerides. The next steps, also common to all algorithms, are to optimize diet and lifestyle changes that lower triglycerides, optimize glycemic control, and optimize statin therapy.

“Although commonly recognized for their impact on LDL-C, statins also provide a 10%-30% dose-dependent reduction in triglycerides in patients with elevated levels,” the guidelines state. Statins are considered a fundamental step to secondary prevention of ASCVD regardless of triglyceride levels.

Once treatable causes or contributors to hypertriglyceridemia have been addressed, lifestyle interventions and statin therapy have been optimized, pharmacologic therapy directed specifically at control of hypertriglyceridemia “can be considered” in those at highest risk of ASCVD events, but Dr. Virani explained that this is never an early or first step in control of elevated triglycerides.

“The entire working group agreed that lifestyle interventions should be highlighted front and center before considering any other intervention,” Dr. Virani explained.

Pharmacologic therapy for hypertriglyceridemia is not ignored. Prescription omega-3 fatty acid products are preferred over nonprescription dietary supplements, which may vary in quality and purity. But these products, rather than a standalone solution, are best applied within the context of efforts to improve diet, lower body weight, and increase physical activity.

Several trials have associated ethyl ester and carboxylic acid preparations with meaningful reductions in triglycerides, but these drugs, including icosapent ethyl (IPE), are not without adverse events. In the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was linked with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation relative to placebo.

IPE is “the best option” and the only therapy with an indication for reduction in ASCVD risk, according to Dr. Virani, but he explained that safety concerns led the authors of the new decision pathway to employ cautious language in regard to its use, suggesting that it be “considered” in high-risk patients after other methods of lowering triglycerides have been optimized.

In the algorithm for the four different risk groups, the decision pathways follow stratifications for different levels of hypertriglyceridemia (defined under fasting and nonfasting conditions) and also for specific levels of LDL cholesterol. ASCVD risk assessment is also a factor in determining the next steps along the decision pathway.

According to Michael Davidson, MD, director of the lipid clinic at the University of Chicago, the emphasis on lifestyle changes for hypertriglyceridemia and the prudent language in regard to pharmacologic therapy is appropriate.

“In light of the controversies regarding the REDUCE-IT trial, the writing committee has done a nice job with providing useful guidance regarding the utilization of icosapent ethyl in higher risk patients,” Dr. Davidson said.

Calling the ACC decision pathway “a welcome enhancement of the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines,” Dr. Davidson praised the way in which the limitations of the evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies were explained.

“Most importantly, this decision pathway helps clinicians appreciate that hypertriglyceridemia can be best managed with lifestyle changes and addressing potential secondary causes,” Dr. Davidson said.

Dr. Virani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Davidson reports financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including those making or pursuing therapies for control of hypertriglyceridemia.

A new decision pathway for the management of hypertriglyceridemia, prompted by a large and growing body of evidence that elevated triglycerides to a targetable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), has been issued by the American College of Cardiology.

According to the chairman of the writing committee, Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, the recommendations amplify and update more than alter the hypertriglyceridemia treatment recommendations in the 2018 joint multisociety blood cholesterol guidelines issued in 2018.

This decision pathway, however, is focused on triglycerides alone.

“The previous guidelines included a section on strategies for addressing hypertriglyceridemia to reduce ASCVD risk, but this new decision pathway builds on the recommendations with more details and with additional information,” explained Dr. Virani, professor of medicine in the section of cardiovascular research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Within this newly published document, the definitions of hypertriglyceridemia and rationale for treatment are followed by detailed algorithms for four specific patient groups with varying triglyceride levels:

• Adults with ASCVD.
• Adults at least 40 years of age with diabetes but no ASCVD.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with no ASCVD or diabetes.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

“In the design of these algorithms, we made an active effort to make them suitable for use by primary care physicians as well as specialists,” said Dr. Virani. Despite “lots of boxes and arrows,” the flowcharts for each of these patient groups permit clinicians to follow the decision pathway without having to reread the text.

The common emphasis in all four algorithms is to begin by evaluating patients for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia, such as multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome and other diseases associated with elevated triglycerides. The next steps, also common to all algorithms, are to optimize diet and lifestyle changes that lower triglycerides, optimize glycemic control, and optimize statin therapy.

“Although commonly recognized for their impact on LDL-C, statins also provide a 10%-30% dose-dependent reduction in triglycerides in patients with elevated levels,” the guidelines state. Statins are considered a fundamental step to secondary prevention of ASCVD regardless of triglyceride levels.

Once treatable causes or contributors to hypertriglyceridemia have been addressed, lifestyle interventions and statin therapy have been optimized, pharmacologic therapy directed specifically at control of hypertriglyceridemia “can be considered” in those at highest risk of ASCVD events, but Dr. Virani explained that this is never an early or first step in control of elevated triglycerides.

“The entire working group agreed that lifestyle interventions should be highlighted front and center before considering any other intervention,” Dr. Virani explained.

Pharmacologic therapy for hypertriglyceridemia is not ignored. Prescription omega-3 fatty acid products are preferred over nonprescription dietary supplements, which may vary in quality and purity. But these products, rather than a standalone solution, are best applied within the context of efforts to improve diet, lower body weight, and increase physical activity.

Several trials have associated ethyl ester and carboxylic acid preparations with meaningful reductions in triglycerides, but these drugs, including icosapent ethyl (IPE), are not without adverse events. In the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was linked with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation relative to placebo.

IPE is “the best option” and the only therapy with an indication for reduction in ASCVD risk, according to Dr. Virani, but he explained that safety concerns led the authors of the new decision pathway to employ cautious language in regard to its use, suggesting that it be “considered” in high-risk patients after other methods of lowering triglycerides have been optimized.

In the algorithm for the four different risk groups, the decision pathways follow stratifications for different levels of hypertriglyceridemia (defined under fasting and nonfasting conditions) and also for specific levels of LDL cholesterol. ASCVD risk assessment is also a factor in determining the next steps along the decision pathway.

According to Michael Davidson, MD, director of the lipid clinic at the University of Chicago, the emphasis on lifestyle changes for hypertriglyceridemia and the prudent language in regard to pharmacologic therapy is appropriate.

“In light of the controversies regarding the REDUCE-IT trial, the writing committee has done a nice job with providing useful guidance regarding the utilization of icosapent ethyl in higher risk patients,” Dr. Davidson said.

Calling the ACC decision pathway “a welcome enhancement of the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines,” Dr. Davidson praised the way in which the limitations of the evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies were explained.

“Most importantly, this decision pathway helps clinicians appreciate that hypertriglyceridemia can be best managed with lifestyle changes and addressing potential secondary causes,” Dr. Davidson said.

Dr. Virani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Davidson reports financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including those making or pursuing therapies for control of hypertriglyceridemia.

A new decision pathway for the management of hypertriglyceridemia, prompted by a large and growing body of evidence that elevated triglycerides to a targetable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), has been issued by the American College of Cardiology.

According to the chairman of the writing committee, Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, the recommendations amplify and update more than alter the hypertriglyceridemia treatment recommendations in the 2018 joint multisociety blood cholesterol guidelines issued in 2018.

This decision pathway, however, is focused on triglycerides alone.

“The previous guidelines included a section on strategies for addressing hypertriglyceridemia to reduce ASCVD risk, but this new decision pathway builds on the recommendations with more details and with additional information,” explained Dr. Virani, professor of medicine in the section of cardiovascular research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Within this newly published document, the definitions of hypertriglyceridemia and rationale for treatment are followed by detailed algorithms for four specific patient groups with varying triglyceride levels:

• Adults with ASCVD.
• Adults at least 40 years of age with diabetes but no ASCVD.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with no ASCVD or diabetes.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

“In the design of these algorithms, we made an active effort to make them suitable for use by primary care physicians as well as specialists,” said Dr. Virani. Despite “lots of boxes and arrows,” the flowcharts for each of these patient groups permit clinicians to follow the decision pathway without having to reread the text.

The common emphasis in all four algorithms is to begin by evaluating patients for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia, such as multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome and other diseases associated with elevated triglycerides. The next steps, also common to all algorithms, are to optimize diet and lifestyle changes that lower triglycerides, optimize glycemic control, and optimize statin therapy.

“Although commonly recognized for their impact on LDL-C, statins also provide a 10%-30% dose-dependent reduction in triglycerides in patients with elevated levels,” the guidelines state. Statins are considered a fundamental step to secondary prevention of ASCVD regardless of triglyceride levels.

Once treatable causes or contributors to hypertriglyceridemia have been addressed, lifestyle interventions and statin therapy have been optimized, pharmacologic therapy directed specifically at control of hypertriglyceridemia “can be considered” in those at highest risk of ASCVD events, but Dr. Virani explained that this is never an early or first step in control of elevated triglycerides.

“The entire working group agreed that lifestyle interventions should be highlighted front and center before considering any other intervention,” Dr. Virani explained.

Pharmacologic therapy for hypertriglyceridemia is not ignored. Prescription omega-3 fatty acid products are preferred over nonprescription dietary supplements, which may vary in quality and purity. But these products, rather than a standalone solution, are best applied within the context of efforts to improve diet, lower body weight, and increase physical activity.

Several trials have associated ethyl ester and carboxylic acid preparations with meaningful reductions in triglycerides, but these drugs, including icosapent ethyl (IPE), are not without adverse events. In the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was linked with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation relative to placebo.

IPE is “the best option” and the only therapy with an indication for reduction in ASCVD risk, according to Dr. Virani, but he explained that safety concerns led the authors of the new decision pathway to employ cautious language in regard to its use, suggesting that it be “considered” in high-risk patients after other methods of lowering triglycerides have been optimized.

In the algorithm for the four different risk groups, the decision pathways follow stratifications for different levels of hypertriglyceridemia (defined under fasting and nonfasting conditions) and also for specific levels of LDL cholesterol. ASCVD risk assessment is also a factor in determining the next steps along the decision pathway.

According to Michael Davidson, MD, director of the lipid clinic at the University of Chicago, the emphasis on lifestyle changes for hypertriglyceridemia and the prudent language in regard to pharmacologic therapy is appropriate.

“In light of the controversies regarding the REDUCE-IT trial, the writing committee has done a nice job with providing useful guidance regarding the utilization of icosapent ethyl in higher risk patients,” Dr. Davidson said.

Calling the ACC decision pathway “a welcome enhancement of the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines,” Dr. Davidson praised the way in which the limitations of the evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies were explained.

“Most importantly, this decision pathway helps clinicians appreciate that hypertriglyceridemia can be best managed with lifestyle changes and addressing potential secondary causes,” Dr. Davidson said.

Dr. Virani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Davidson reports financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including those making or pursuing therapies for control of hypertriglyceridemia.

A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.

byryo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.

In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.

Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.

“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”

And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”

Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.

The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.

The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.

In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).

When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).

The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.

Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.

The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.

“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.

byryo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.

In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.

Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.

“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”

And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”

Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.

The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.

The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.

In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).

When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).

The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.

Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.

The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.

“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.

byryo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.

In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.

Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.

“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”

And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”

Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.

The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.

The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.

In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).

When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).

The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.

Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.

The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.

“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer a person has diabetes, the greater their risk for also developing heart failure, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults followed for a median of close to 23 years.

In a multivariable analysis the rate of incident heart failure increased steadily and significantly as diabetes duration increased. Among the 168 study subjects (2% of the total study group) who had diabetes for at least 15 years, the subsequent incidence of heart failure was nearly threefold higher than among the 4,802 subjects (49%) who never had diabetes or prediabetes, reported Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, and coauthors in an article published in JACC Heart Failure.

People with prediabetes (32% of the study population) had a significant but modest increased rate of incident heart failure that was 16% higher than in control subjects who never developed diabetes. People with diabetes for durations of 0-4.9 years, 5.0-9.9 years, or 10-14.9 years, had steadily increasing relative incident heart failure rates of 29%, 97%, and 210%, respectively, compared with controls, reported Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Similar rates of HFrEF and HFpEF

Among all 1,841 people in the dataset with diabetes for any length of time each additional 5 years of the disorder linked with a significant, relative 17% increase in the rate of incident heart failure. Incidence of heart failure rose even more sharply with added duration among those with a hemoglobin A1c of 7% or greater, compared with those with better glycemic control. And the rate of incident heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) roughly matched the rate of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The study dataset included 9,734 adults enrolled into the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, and during a median follow-up of 22.5 years they had nearly 2,000 episodes of either hospitalization or death secondary to incident heart failure. This included 617 (31%) events involving HFpEF, 495 events (25%) involving HFrEF, and 876 unclassified heart failure events.

The cohort averaged 63 years of age; 58% were women, 23% were Black, and 77% were White (the study design excluded people with other racial and ethnic backgrounds). The study design also excluded people with a history of heart failure or coronary artery disease, as well as those diagnosed with diabetes prior to age 18 resulting in a study group that presumably mostly had type 2 diabetes when diabetes was present. The report provided no data on the specific numbers of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

“It’s not surprising that a longer duration of diabetes is associated with heart failure, but the etiology remains problematic,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “The impact of diabetes on incident heart failure is not well know, particularly duration of diabetes,” although disorders often found in patients with diabetes, such as hypertension and diabetic cardiomyopathy, likely have roles in causing heart failure, he said.
 

Diabetes duration may signal need for an SGLT2 inhibitor

“With emerging novel treatments like the SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors for preventing heart failure hospitalizations and deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes, this is a timely analysis,” Dr. Eckel said in an interview.

“There is no question that with increased duration of type 2 diabetes” the need for an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class increases. Although, because of the proven protection these drugs give against heart failure events and progression of chronic kidney disease, treatment with this drug class should start early in patients with type 2 diabetes, he added.

Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors agreed, citing two important clinical take-aways from their findings:

First, interventions that delay the onset of diabetes may potentially reduce incident heart failure; second, patients with diabetes might benefit from cardioprotective treatments such as SGLT2 inhibitors, the report said.

“Our observations suggest the potential prognostic relevance of diabetes duration in assessing heart failure,” the authors wrote. Integrating diabetes duration into heart failure risk estimation in people with diabetes “could help refine the selection of high-risk individuals who may derive the greatest absolute benefit from aggressive cardioprotective therapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors.”

The analysis also identified several other demographic and clinical factors that influenced the relative effect of diabetes duration. Longer duration was linked with higher rates of incident heart failure in women compared with men, in Blacks compared with Whites, in people younger than 65 compared with older people, in people with an A1c of 7% or higher, and in those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The ARIC study and the analyses run by Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors received no commercial funding. Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

The longer a person has diabetes, the greater their risk for also developing heart failure, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults followed for a median of close to 23 years.

In a multivariable analysis the rate of incident heart failure increased steadily and significantly as diabetes duration increased. Among the 168 study subjects (2% of the total study group) who had diabetes for at least 15 years, the subsequent incidence of heart failure was nearly threefold higher than among the 4,802 subjects (49%) who never had diabetes or prediabetes, reported Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, and coauthors in an article published in JACC Heart Failure.

People with prediabetes (32% of the study population) had a significant but modest increased rate of incident heart failure that was 16% higher than in control subjects who never developed diabetes. People with diabetes for durations of 0-4.9 years, 5.0-9.9 years, or 10-14.9 years, had steadily increasing relative incident heart failure rates of 29%, 97%, and 210%, respectively, compared with controls, reported Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Similar rates of HFrEF and HFpEF

Among all 1,841 people in the dataset with diabetes for any length of time each additional 5 years of the disorder linked with a significant, relative 17% increase in the rate of incident heart failure. Incidence of heart failure rose even more sharply with added duration among those with a hemoglobin A1c of 7% or greater, compared with those with better glycemic control. And the rate of incident heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) roughly matched the rate of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The study dataset included 9,734 adults enrolled into the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, and during a median follow-up of 22.5 years they had nearly 2,000 episodes of either hospitalization or death secondary to incident heart failure. This included 617 (31%) events involving HFpEF, 495 events (25%) involving HFrEF, and 876 unclassified heart failure events.

The cohort averaged 63 years of age; 58% were women, 23% were Black, and 77% were White (the study design excluded people with other racial and ethnic backgrounds). The study design also excluded people with a history of heart failure or coronary artery disease, as well as those diagnosed with diabetes prior to age 18 resulting in a study group that presumably mostly had type 2 diabetes when diabetes was present. The report provided no data on the specific numbers of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

“It’s not surprising that a longer duration of diabetes is associated with heart failure, but the etiology remains problematic,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “The impact of diabetes on incident heart failure is not well know, particularly duration of diabetes,” although disorders often found in patients with diabetes, such as hypertension and diabetic cardiomyopathy, likely have roles in causing heart failure, he said.
 

Diabetes duration may signal need for an SGLT2 inhibitor

“With emerging novel treatments like the SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors for preventing heart failure hospitalizations and deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes, this is a timely analysis,” Dr. Eckel said in an interview.

“There is no question that with increased duration of type 2 diabetes” the need for an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class increases. Although, because of the proven protection these drugs give against heart failure events and progression of chronic kidney disease, treatment with this drug class should start early in patients with type 2 diabetes, he added.

Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors agreed, citing two important clinical take-aways from their findings:

First, interventions that delay the onset of diabetes may potentially reduce incident heart failure; second, patients with diabetes might benefit from cardioprotective treatments such as SGLT2 inhibitors, the report said.

“Our observations suggest the potential prognostic relevance of diabetes duration in assessing heart failure,” the authors wrote. Integrating diabetes duration into heart failure risk estimation in people with diabetes “could help refine the selection of high-risk individuals who may derive the greatest absolute benefit from aggressive cardioprotective therapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors.”

The analysis also identified several other demographic and clinical factors that influenced the relative effect of diabetes duration. Longer duration was linked with higher rates of incident heart failure in women compared with men, in Blacks compared with Whites, in people younger than 65 compared with older people, in people with an A1c of 7% or higher, and in those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The ARIC study and the analyses run by Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors received no commercial funding. Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

The longer a person has diabetes, the greater their risk for also developing heart failure, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults followed for a median of close to 23 years.

In a multivariable analysis the rate of incident heart failure increased steadily and significantly as diabetes duration increased. Among the 168 study subjects (2% of the total study group) who had diabetes for at least 15 years, the subsequent incidence of heart failure was nearly threefold higher than among the 4,802 subjects (49%) who never had diabetes or prediabetes, reported Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, and coauthors in an article published in JACC Heart Failure.

People with prediabetes (32% of the study population) had a significant but modest increased rate of incident heart failure that was 16% higher than in control subjects who never developed diabetes. People with diabetes for durations of 0-4.9 years, 5.0-9.9 years, or 10-14.9 years, had steadily increasing relative incident heart failure rates of 29%, 97%, and 210%, respectively, compared with controls, reported Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Similar rates of HFrEF and HFpEF

Among all 1,841 people in the dataset with diabetes for any length of time each additional 5 years of the disorder linked with a significant, relative 17% increase in the rate of incident heart failure. Incidence of heart failure rose even more sharply with added duration among those with a hemoglobin A1c of 7% or greater, compared with those with better glycemic control. And the rate of incident heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) roughly matched the rate of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The study dataset included 9,734 adults enrolled into the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, and during a median follow-up of 22.5 years they had nearly 2,000 episodes of either hospitalization or death secondary to incident heart failure. This included 617 (31%) events involving HFpEF, 495 events (25%) involving HFrEF, and 876 unclassified heart failure events.

The cohort averaged 63 years of age; 58% were women, 23% were Black, and 77% were White (the study design excluded people with other racial and ethnic backgrounds). The study design also excluded people with a history of heart failure or coronary artery disease, as well as those diagnosed with diabetes prior to age 18 resulting in a study group that presumably mostly had type 2 diabetes when diabetes was present. The report provided no data on the specific numbers of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

“It’s not surprising that a longer duration of diabetes is associated with heart failure, but the etiology remains problematic,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “The impact of diabetes on incident heart failure is not well know, particularly duration of diabetes,” although disorders often found in patients with diabetes, such as hypertension and diabetic cardiomyopathy, likely have roles in causing heart failure, he said.
 

Diabetes duration may signal need for an SGLT2 inhibitor

“With emerging novel treatments like the SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors for preventing heart failure hospitalizations and deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes, this is a timely analysis,” Dr. Eckel said in an interview.

“There is no question that with increased duration of type 2 diabetes” the need for an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class increases. Although, because of the proven protection these drugs give against heart failure events and progression of chronic kidney disease, treatment with this drug class should start early in patients with type 2 diabetes, he added.

Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors agreed, citing two important clinical take-aways from their findings:

First, interventions that delay the onset of diabetes may potentially reduce incident heart failure; second, patients with diabetes might benefit from cardioprotective treatments such as SGLT2 inhibitors, the report said.

“Our observations suggest the potential prognostic relevance of diabetes duration in assessing heart failure,” the authors wrote. Integrating diabetes duration into heart failure risk estimation in people with diabetes “could help refine the selection of high-risk individuals who may derive the greatest absolute benefit from aggressive cardioprotective therapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors.”

The analysis also identified several other demographic and clinical factors that influenced the relative effect of diabetes duration. Longer duration was linked with higher rates of incident heart failure in women compared with men, in Blacks compared with Whites, in people younger than 65 compared with older people, in people with an A1c of 7% or higher, and in those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The ARIC study and the analyses run by Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors received no commercial funding. Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

People age 40 and younger living with HIV have a higher risk for heart disease than even their over-40 peers living with HIV – and that risk was 54% higher than the general public.

And this was among people without traditional heart disease risks, such as smoking and obesity.

“What’s surprising is that not only do we see that, yes, they do have increased risk, but this is after controlling for all of that – which means the mechanism underlying this risk,” said Tiffany Gooden, MPH and a PhD candidate at the University of Birmingham, England, who presented the data at the 11th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021).

“If we’re using a non–HIV-validated assessment tool, you should always know that there could be a risk that you are under-recognizing,” she added.

Right now, there’s not a lot to aid clinicians in ferreting out this increased risk. Traditional cardiovascular risk assessment tools, like Framingham risk scores and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score from the American College of Cardiology, have been found to overlook the real risk of cardiovascular disease in people living with HIV. Plus, most guidelines, including those from the British HIV Medical Association and the American College of Cardiology, primarily focus screening on people 40 or older.

Ms. Gooden’s study drew data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, which combines data from 800 primary care practices in the United Kingdom. Looking at data between January 2000 and January 2020, the investigators compared each person living with HIV with four peers not living with HIV, matched for age, gender, and practice. In total, 9,233 people living with HIV and 35,721 people without HIV were included in the analysis. Median age of participants was 41 years in people living with HIV and 40.4 years in people without HIV. About 35% of participants in both arms were women, and a greater proportion of participants living with HIV were Black, accounting for 22.5% of people living with HIV, versus 3.8% of the general population. Fewer people living with HIV were overweight or obese compared to people without HIV.

Researchers then tracked participants over time to identify the incidence of heart attack, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure, as well as common risk factors for heart problems, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, and use of a lipid-lowering drug such as a statin.

The investigators then sectioned the data on heart disease risk by decade – 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 – in order to separate the potential impact of antiretroviral treatment (ART) drugs, from early combinations that have been associated with cardiovascular disease, to current drugs that are less likely to have that effect.

Overall risk for any kind of cardiovascular disease was 54% higher among people living with HIV of any age, compared to their age- and risk-matched peers. And when they broke the data down by age, they found that people younger than 40 had nearly twice the risk for any heart disease as their HIV-negative peers, which was a numerically higher risk than for people older than 40 – though not significantly so.

People living with HIV also had a 49% increased risk for stroke and a 59% increased risk for ischemic heart disease but no increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, or heart attack. But the confidence intervals here were wide, “which may indicate lack of power and therefore not be conclusive,” Ms. Gooden said.

People living with HIV also had a 37% increased risk for hypertension, were 96% more likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering drugs, 2.4-times more likely to have chronic kidney disease, and 2.68-times more likely to experience all-cause mortality. The study couldn’t account for the type of HIV medications people living with the virus used, their viral load, or their CD4 counts – all of which have been found in previous studies to contribute to heart disease in people with HIV.

“That was the biggest limitation of our study,” Ms. Gooden said in an interview. “The fact that the risk of cardiovascular disease remains the same in the [first decade] and the later decade goes to show that even if antiretroviral therapies contributed to that … now or 20 years ago, it’s still not the entire reason for the risk.”

Steven Grinspoon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, is the lead author on the REPRIEVE trial, now testing statins as a treatment for people like those in this study. He told this news organization that this large analysis had one of the youngest cohorts of people living with HIV he’d seen to explore these issues. Additionally, it backs up what the team recently reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association – that plaque was present in 49% of 755 people living with HIV, despite having risk scores for cardiovascular disease in the normal range. This was as true for people younger than 40 as those older than 40.

For primary care clinicians, the message is that even relatively young people with HIV should be counseled early and often about amending traditional risk factors, while we wait for the results of REPRIEVE to say whether statins improve outcomes for people living with HIV, Dr. Grinspoon said in an interview.

“Sometimes physicians and primary care providers say, ‘Well I’ll focus my hypertension efforts on older people, who are closer to having heart attacks,’” Dr. Grinspoon said. “But this data suggests we should pay attention even in young people … and pay particular attention to women who wouldn’t have traditional risk scores that were very high at all, largely because they are women.”

The study was funded by Merck. Ms. Gooden has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grinspoon reports receiving personal and consulting fees from Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare.

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

People age 40 and younger living with HIV have a higher risk for heart disease than even their over-40 peers living with HIV – and that risk was 54% higher than the general public.

And this was among people without traditional heart disease risks, such as smoking and obesity.

“What’s surprising is that not only do we see that, yes, they do have increased risk, but this is after controlling for all of that – which means the mechanism underlying this risk,” said Tiffany Gooden, MPH and a PhD candidate at the University of Birmingham, England, who presented the data at the 11th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021).

“If we’re using a non–HIV-validated assessment tool, you should always know that there could be a risk that you are under-recognizing,” she added.

Right now, there’s not a lot to aid clinicians in ferreting out this increased risk. Traditional cardiovascular risk assessment tools, like Framingham risk scores and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score from the American College of Cardiology, have been found to overlook the real risk of cardiovascular disease in people living with HIV. Plus, most guidelines, including those from the British HIV Medical Association and the American College of Cardiology, primarily focus screening on people 40 or older.

Ms. Gooden’s study drew data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, which combines data from 800 primary care practices in the United Kingdom. Looking at data between January 2000 and January 2020, the investigators compared each person living with HIV with four peers not living with HIV, matched for age, gender, and practice. In total, 9,233 people living with HIV and 35,721 people without HIV were included in the analysis. Median age of participants was 41 years in people living with HIV and 40.4 years in people without HIV. About 35% of participants in both arms were women, and a greater proportion of participants living with HIV were Black, accounting for 22.5% of people living with HIV, versus 3.8% of the general population. Fewer people living with HIV were overweight or obese compared to people without HIV.

Researchers then tracked participants over time to identify the incidence of heart attack, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure, as well as common risk factors for heart problems, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, and use of a lipid-lowering drug such as a statin.

The investigators then sectioned the data on heart disease risk by decade – 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 – in order to separate the potential impact of antiretroviral treatment (ART) drugs, from early combinations that have been associated with cardiovascular disease, to current drugs that are less likely to have that effect.

Overall risk for any kind of cardiovascular disease was 54% higher among people living with HIV of any age, compared to their age- and risk-matched peers. And when they broke the data down by age, they found that people younger than 40 had nearly twice the risk for any heart disease as their HIV-negative peers, which was a numerically higher risk than for people older than 40 – though not significantly so.

People living with HIV also had a 49% increased risk for stroke and a 59% increased risk for ischemic heart disease but no increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, or heart attack. But the confidence intervals here were wide, “which may indicate lack of power and therefore not be conclusive,” Ms. Gooden said.

People living with HIV also had a 37% increased risk for hypertension, were 96% more likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering drugs, 2.4-times more likely to have chronic kidney disease, and 2.68-times more likely to experience all-cause mortality. The study couldn’t account for the type of HIV medications people living with the virus used, their viral load, or their CD4 counts – all of which have been found in previous studies to contribute to heart disease in people with HIV.

“That was the biggest limitation of our study,” Ms. Gooden said in an interview. “The fact that the risk of cardiovascular disease remains the same in the [first decade] and the later decade goes to show that even if antiretroviral therapies contributed to that … now or 20 years ago, it’s still not the entire reason for the risk.”

Steven Grinspoon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, is the lead author on the REPRIEVE trial, now testing statins as a treatment for people like those in this study. He told this news organization that this large analysis had one of the youngest cohorts of people living with HIV he’d seen to explore these issues. Additionally, it backs up what the team recently reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association – that plaque was present in 49% of 755 people living with HIV, despite having risk scores for cardiovascular disease in the normal range. This was as true for people younger than 40 as those older than 40.

For primary care clinicians, the message is that even relatively young people with HIV should be counseled early and often about amending traditional risk factors, while we wait for the results of REPRIEVE to say whether statins improve outcomes for people living with HIV, Dr. Grinspoon said in an interview.

“Sometimes physicians and primary care providers say, ‘Well I’ll focus my hypertension efforts on older people, who are closer to having heart attacks,’” Dr. Grinspoon said. “But this data suggests we should pay attention even in young people … and pay particular attention to women who wouldn’t have traditional risk scores that were very high at all, largely because they are women.”

The study was funded by Merck. Ms. Gooden has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grinspoon reports receiving personal and consulting fees from Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare.

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

People age 40 and younger living with HIV have a higher risk for heart disease than even their over-40 peers living with HIV – and that risk was 54% higher than the general public.

And this was among people without traditional heart disease risks, such as smoking and obesity.

“What’s surprising is that not only do we see that, yes, they do have increased risk, but this is after controlling for all of that – which means the mechanism underlying this risk,” said Tiffany Gooden, MPH and a PhD candidate at the University of Birmingham, England, who presented the data at the 11th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021).

“If we’re using a non–HIV-validated assessment tool, you should always know that there could be a risk that you are under-recognizing,” she added.

Right now, there’s not a lot to aid clinicians in ferreting out this increased risk. Traditional cardiovascular risk assessment tools, like Framingham risk scores and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score from the American College of Cardiology, have been found to overlook the real risk of cardiovascular disease in people living with HIV. Plus, most guidelines, including those from the British HIV Medical Association and the American College of Cardiology, primarily focus screening on people 40 or older.

Ms. Gooden’s study drew data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, which combines data from 800 primary care practices in the United Kingdom. Looking at data between January 2000 and January 2020, the investigators compared each person living with HIV with four peers not living with HIV, matched for age, gender, and practice. In total, 9,233 people living with HIV and 35,721 people without HIV were included in the analysis. Median age of participants was 41 years in people living with HIV and 40.4 years in people without HIV. About 35% of participants in both arms were women, and a greater proportion of participants living with HIV were Black, accounting for 22.5% of people living with HIV, versus 3.8% of the general population. Fewer people living with HIV were overweight or obese compared to people without HIV.

Researchers then tracked participants over time to identify the incidence of heart attack, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure, as well as common risk factors for heart problems, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, and use of a lipid-lowering drug such as a statin.

The investigators then sectioned the data on heart disease risk by decade – 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 – in order to separate the potential impact of antiretroviral treatment (ART) drugs, from early combinations that have been associated with cardiovascular disease, to current drugs that are less likely to have that effect.

Overall risk for any kind of cardiovascular disease was 54% higher among people living with HIV of any age, compared to their age- and risk-matched peers. And when they broke the data down by age, they found that people younger than 40 had nearly twice the risk for any heart disease as their HIV-negative peers, which was a numerically higher risk than for people older than 40 – though not significantly so.

People living with HIV also had a 49% increased risk for stroke and a 59% increased risk for ischemic heart disease but no increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, or heart attack. But the confidence intervals here were wide, “which may indicate lack of power and therefore not be conclusive,” Ms. Gooden said.

People living with HIV also had a 37% increased risk for hypertension, were 96% more likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering drugs, 2.4-times more likely to have chronic kidney disease, and 2.68-times more likely to experience all-cause mortality. The study couldn’t account for the type of HIV medications people living with the virus used, their viral load, or their CD4 counts – all of which have been found in previous studies to contribute to heart disease in people with HIV.

“That was the biggest limitation of our study,” Ms. Gooden said in an interview. “The fact that the risk of cardiovascular disease remains the same in the [first decade] and the later decade goes to show that even if antiretroviral therapies contributed to that … now or 20 years ago, it’s still not the entire reason for the risk.”

Steven Grinspoon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, is the lead author on the REPRIEVE trial, now testing statins as a treatment for people like those in this study. He told this news organization that this large analysis had one of the youngest cohorts of people living with HIV he’d seen to explore these issues. Additionally, it backs up what the team recently reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association – that plaque was present in 49% of 755 people living with HIV, despite having risk scores for cardiovascular disease in the normal range. This was as true for people younger than 40 as those older than 40.

For primary care clinicians, the message is that even relatively young people with HIV should be counseled early and often about amending traditional risk factors, while we wait for the results of REPRIEVE to say whether statins improve outcomes for people living with HIV, Dr. Grinspoon said in an interview.

“Sometimes physicians and primary care providers say, ‘Well I’ll focus my hypertension efforts on older people, who are closer to having heart attacks,’” Dr. Grinspoon said. “But this data suggests we should pay attention even in young people … and pay particular attention to women who wouldn’t have traditional risk scores that were very high at all, largely because they are women.”

The study was funded by Merck. Ms. Gooden has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grinspoon reports receiving personal and consulting fees from Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.