User login
Analysis supports CAC for personalizing statin use
In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.
Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.
And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.
The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.
Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.
“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk.
Utility of CAC
“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.
That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.
The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”
Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”
Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”
While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
Study confirms guidelines
The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”
The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”
Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”
Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.
In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.
Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.
And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.
The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.
Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.
“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk.
Utility of CAC
“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.
That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.
The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”
Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”
Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”
While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
Study confirms guidelines
The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”
The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”
Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”
Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.
In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.
Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.
And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.
The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.
Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.
“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk.
Utility of CAC
“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.
That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.
The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”
Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”
Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”
While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
Study confirms guidelines
The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”
The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”
Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”
Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
Cycling linked to longer life in people with type 2 diabetes
Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.
Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.
“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.
In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.
Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”
Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”
However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”
But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality
The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.
Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.
In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.
Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”
They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”
The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.
Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.
“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.
In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.
Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”
Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”
However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”
But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality
The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.
Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.
In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.
Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”
They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”
The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.
Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.
“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.
In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.
Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”
Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”
However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”
But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality
The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.
Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.
In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.
Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”
They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”
The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Statin safety, low muscle pain risk upheld in ‘reassuring’ study
Statins are associated with a low risk of adverse events in patients without a history of heart disease, but the potential harms are small and should not deter their use in primary prevention, a new systematic review and meta-analysis concludes.
As reported July 14 in BMJ, the analysis showed a slightly increased risk for self-reported muscle symptoms after treatment with statins but no increased risk for clinically confirmed muscle disorders. Statins were associated with liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, and eye conditions, but not with diabetes.
“These risks are very, very small and, in fact, the adverse events we’re talking about are potentially quite mild, so if you weigh them against the benefits in terms of reduction in major cardiovascular events, the benefit-to-harm ratio is very much in favor of prescribing treatment for almost all patients,” senior author James P. Sheppard, MD, University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.
Although there’s an abundance of data showing that statins prevent recurrent cardiovascular events, their use is controversial in primary prevention, owing partly to the lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The absolute benefits of statins are smaller in primary prevention than in those with existing CVD, and the benefit-to-harm balance of treatment might be less favorable, the authors note.
A 2019 review suggested that the use of statins in primary prevention may be an example of “low-value care, having little benefit and potential to cause harm,” and a meta-analysis with more than 94,000 trial participants showed statins significantly increased risks for myopathy, renal dysfunction, and hepatic dysfunction.
Nevertheless, clinical guidelines have recommended wider use of statins for primary prevention, calling on physicians to weigh the benefits and harms.
“This is a reasonable expectation but, at present, the data on the harms of treatment are much less well understood in comparison to the benefits and there’s quite a lot of debate about the extent to which statins are associated with adverse events,” Dr. Sheppard said. “So we wanted to look at this in a bit more detail.”
The investigators analyzed results from 62 randomized controlled trials with 120,456 participants (mean age, 61; 40% women) followed for a mean of 3.9 years. All but two studies enrolled participants with hyperlipidemia or dyslipidemia. Common comorbidities were diabetes (11 studies), asymptomatic atherosclerosis (nine studies), and hypertension (four studies).
Statins increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms in 21 trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.06), liver dysfunction in 21 trials (OR, 1.33), renal insufficiency in eight trials (OR, 1.14), and cataracts or other eye-related conditions in six trials (OR, 1.23).
At the same time, statins decreased risks for myocardial infarction in 22 trials (OR, 0.72), stroke in 17 trials (OR, 0.80), and CVD death in 22 trials (OR, 0.83).
These risks translated into 15 more events of muscle symptoms, 8 more liver events, 12 more kidney events, and 14 more eye conditions per 10,000 patients treated for a year.
Statins were estimated to prevent 19 myocardial infarctions, 9 strokes, and 8 CVD deaths per 10,000 patients treated for a year.
Dr. Sheppard suggested that the inclusion of previously omitted trials and the decision to classify muscle problems as self-reported symptoms or clinically defined muscle disorders based on changes in creatine kinase might explain why they found the association with statins, whereas most systematic reviews have not.
“Some people would argue that these side effects are so small and so negligible that we shouldn’t talk about them, but the problem with doing that is if you’ve got a patient who has a preconceived idea that statins are harmful,” he added. “So having some empirical data where you can actually say: ‘Look, just 15 people out of 10,000 patients who’ve been treated for a year might experience one of those self-reported muscle symptoms,’ hopefully, will be helpful for physicians having discussions in practice.”
The analysis is “another data point indicating the overall safety and net benefit of statins for patients, even in primary prevention,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, chair of preventive medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
He noted that the renal insufficiency findings are difficult to interpret, given that the endpoint was defined as “any decline in renal function,” but that most will have been clinically unimportant. In general, most studies didn’t systematically look to ascertain some of adverse events but relied on participant or physician report. “Nonetheless, there is little reason to suspect bias in the collection of these data among the blinded studies.
“Although not definitive, given the study design and inclusion of very different types of studies and variable ascertainment of adverse events, the findings are reassuring that the risks of adverse events were small, and the potential adverse events identified were not very clinically significant and clearly outweighed by the important beneficial reductions in major cardiovascular events,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones.
“This study is yet another reminder of the safety of statins,” Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, a specialist in preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said in an email.
“I’m pleased to have a comprehensive study like this – a well-done, systematic review of randomized trials – to help combat the vast amounts of misinformation about statins circulating on the Internet.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones also acknowledged the need to address misinformation, pointing out that the loss of contact with physicians and the adverse effects of the pandemic on weight and other health behaviors mean that many patients have had worsening of their cardiovascular risk factors.
“We must continue to help patients and the public understand that statins are beneficial for patients at sufficient risk for cardiovascular disease because of elevated cholesterol or their total burden of risk factors,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. “We must also be upfront about the risks of potential side effects, which are uncommon and almost always very easily managed with washout and dose reduction or switching to a different drug in the same class.”
Analyses by type of statin, however, showed few significant differences in adverse events. Rosuvastatin was associated with increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions, whereas atorvastatin and lovastatin increased the risk for liver dysfunction.
In dose-response meta-analyses, a possible modest dose-response relationship was detected only for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction.
The current data do not support tailoring the type of statin or dosage to reduce adverse events, the authors say, although routine monitoring of liver function during treatment is probably warranted in primary prevention, given the increased risk for liver dysfunction.
To help improve adherence to statins, the investigators said, additional studies are needed to identify patient characteristics crucial to the small risks of adverse events.
Limitations of the research, they said, are that many of the analyses were underpowered to detect between-group differences, many trials had short periods of follow-up, and some trials excluded vulnerable people more likely to have adverse events, such as those with high serum creatinine.
The study was funded by a British Heart Foundation PhD Scholarship held by first author Ting Cai. Dr. Sheppard reports receiving funding from a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship. Disclosures for other authors are listed in the paper. Dr. Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Navar report having no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Statins are associated with a low risk of adverse events in patients without a history of heart disease, but the potential harms are small and should not deter their use in primary prevention, a new systematic review and meta-analysis concludes.
As reported July 14 in BMJ, the analysis showed a slightly increased risk for self-reported muscle symptoms after treatment with statins but no increased risk for clinically confirmed muscle disorders. Statins were associated with liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, and eye conditions, but not with diabetes.
“These risks are very, very small and, in fact, the adverse events we’re talking about are potentially quite mild, so if you weigh them against the benefits in terms of reduction in major cardiovascular events, the benefit-to-harm ratio is very much in favor of prescribing treatment for almost all patients,” senior author James P. Sheppard, MD, University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.
Although there’s an abundance of data showing that statins prevent recurrent cardiovascular events, their use is controversial in primary prevention, owing partly to the lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The absolute benefits of statins are smaller in primary prevention than in those with existing CVD, and the benefit-to-harm balance of treatment might be less favorable, the authors note.
A 2019 review suggested that the use of statins in primary prevention may be an example of “low-value care, having little benefit and potential to cause harm,” and a meta-analysis with more than 94,000 trial participants showed statins significantly increased risks for myopathy, renal dysfunction, and hepatic dysfunction.
Nevertheless, clinical guidelines have recommended wider use of statins for primary prevention, calling on physicians to weigh the benefits and harms.
“This is a reasonable expectation but, at present, the data on the harms of treatment are much less well understood in comparison to the benefits and there’s quite a lot of debate about the extent to which statins are associated with adverse events,” Dr. Sheppard said. “So we wanted to look at this in a bit more detail.”
The investigators analyzed results from 62 randomized controlled trials with 120,456 participants (mean age, 61; 40% women) followed for a mean of 3.9 years. All but two studies enrolled participants with hyperlipidemia or dyslipidemia. Common comorbidities were diabetes (11 studies), asymptomatic atherosclerosis (nine studies), and hypertension (four studies).
Statins increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms in 21 trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.06), liver dysfunction in 21 trials (OR, 1.33), renal insufficiency in eight trials (OR, 1.14), and cataracts or other eye-related conditions in six trials (OR, 1.23).
At the same time, statins decreased risks for myocardial infarction in 22 trials (OR, 0.72), stroke in 17 trials (OR, 0.80), and CVD death in 22 trials (OR, 0.83).
These risks translated into 15 more events of muscle symptoms, 8 more liver events, 12 more kidney events, and 14 more eye conditions per 10,000 patients treated for a year.
Statins were estimated to prevent 19 myocardial infarctions, 9 strokes, and 8 CVD deaths per 10,000 patients treated for a year.
Dr. Sheppard suggested that the inclusion of previously omitted trials and the decision to classify muscle problems as self-reported symptoms or clinically defined muscle disorders based on changes in creatine kinase might explain why they found the association with statins, whereas most systematic reviews have not.
“Some people would argue that these side effects are so small and so negligible that we shouldn’t talk about them, but the problem with doing that is if you’ve got a patient who has a preconceived idea that statins are harmful,” he added. “So having some empirical data where you can actually say: ‘Look, just 15 people out of 10,000 patients who’ve been treated for a year might experience one of those self-reported muscle symptoms,’ hopefully, will be helpful for physicians having discussions in practice.”
The analysis is “another data point indicating the overall safety and net benefit of statins for patients, even in primary prevention,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, chair of preventive medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
He noted that the renal insufficiency findings are difficult to interpret, given that the endpoint was defined as “any decline in renal function,” but that most will have been clinically unimportant. In general, most studies didn’t systematically look to ascertain some of adverse events but relied on participant or physician report. “Nonetheless, there is little reason to suspect bias in the collection of these data among the blinded studies.
“Although not definitive, given the study design and inclusion of very different types of studies and variable ascertainment of adverse events, the findings are reassuring that the risks of adverse events were small, and the potential adverse events identified were not very clinically significant and clearly outweighed by the important beneficial reductions in major cardiovascular events,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones.
“This study is yet another reminder of the safety of statins,” Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, a specialist in preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said in an email.
“I’m pleased to have a comprehensive study like this – a well-done, systematic review of randomized trials – to help combat the vast amounts of misinformation about statins circulating on the Internet.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones also acknowledged the need to address misinformation, pointing out that the loss of contact with physicians and the adverse effects of the pandemic on weight and other health behaviors mean that many patients have had worsening of their cardiovascular risk factors.
“We must continue to help patients and the public understand that statins are beneficial for patients at sufficient risk for cardiovascular disease because of elevated cholesterol or their total burden of risk factors,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. “We must also be upfront about the risks of potential side effects, which are uncommon and almost always very easily managed with washout and dose reduction or switching to a different drug in the same class.”
Analyses by type of statin, however, showed few significant differences in adverse events. Rosuvastatin was associated with increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions, whereas atorvastatin and lovastatin increased the risk for liver dysfunction.
In dose-response meta-analyses, a possible modest dose-response relationship was detected only for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction.
The current data do not support tailoring the type of statin or dosage to reduce adverse events, the authors say, although routine monitoring of liver function during treatment is probably warranted in primary prevention, given the increased risk for liver dysfunction.
To help improve adherence to statins, the investigators said, additional studies are needed to identify patient characteristics crucial to the small risks of adverse events.
Limitations of the research, they said, are that many of the analyses were underpowered to detect between-group differences, many trials had short periods of follow-up, and some trials excluded vulnerable people more likely to have adverse events, such as those with high serum creatinine.
The study was funded by a British Heart Foundation PhD Scholarship held by first author Ting Cai. Dr. Sheppard reports receiving funding from a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship. Disclosures for other authors are listed in the paper. Dr. Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Navar report having no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Statins are associated with a low risk of adverse events in patients without a history of heart disease, but the potential harms are small and should not deter their use in primary prevention, a new systematic review and meta-analysis concludes.
As reported July 14 in BMJ, the analysis showed a slightly increased risk for self-reported muscle symptoms after treatment with statins but no increased risk for clinically confirmed muscle disorders. Statins were associated with liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, and eye conditions, but not with diabetes.
“These risks are very, very small and, in fact, the adverse events we’re talking about are potentially quite mild, so if you weigh them against the benefits in terms of reduction in major cardiovascular events, the benefit-to-harm ratio is very much in favor of prescribing treatment for almost all patients,” senior author James P. Sheppard, MD, University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.
Although there’s an abundance of data showing that statins prevent recurrent cardiovascular events, their use is controversial in primary prevention, owing partly to the lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The absolute benefits of statins are smaller in primary prevention than in those with existing CVD, and the benefit-to-harm balance of treatment might be less favorable, the authors note.
A 2019 review suggested that the use of statins in primary prevention may be an example of “low-value care, having little benefit and potential to cause harm,” and a meta-analysis with more than 94,000 trial participants showed statins significantly increased risks for myopathy, renal dysfunction, and hepatic dysfunction.
Nevertheless, clinical guidelines have recommended wider use of statins for primary prevention, calling on physicians to weigh the benefits and harms.
“This is a reasonable expectation but, at present, the data on the harms of treatment are much less well understood in comparison to the benefits and there’s quite a lot of debate about the extent to which statins are associated with adverse events,” Dr. Sheppard said. “So we wanted to look at this in a bit more detail.”
The investigators analyzed results from 62 randomized controlled trials with 120,456 participants (mean age, 61; 40% women) followed for a mean of 3.9 years. All but two studies enrolled participants with hyperlipidemia or dyslipidemia. Common comorbidities were diabetes (11 studies), asymptomatic atherosclerosis (nine studies), and hypertension (four studies).
Statins increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms in 21 trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.06), liver dysfunction in 21 trials (OR, 1.33), renal insufficiency in eight trials (OR, 1.14), and cataracts or other eye-related conditions in six trials (OR, 1.23).
At the same time, statins decreased risks for myocardial infarction in 22 trials (OR, 0.72), stroke in 17 trials (OR, 0.80), and CVD death in 22 trials (OR, 0.83).
These risks translated into 15 more events of muscle symptoms, 8 more liver events, 12 more kidney events, and 14 more eye conditions per 10,000 patients treated for a year.
Statins were estimated to prevent 19 myocardial infarctions, 9 strokes, and 8 CVD deaths per 10,000 patients treated for a year.
Dr. Sheppard suggested that the inclusion of previously omitted trials and the decision to classify muscle problems as self-reported symptoms or clinically defined muscle disorders based on changes in creatine kinase might explain why they found the association with statins, whereas most systematic reviews have not.
“Some people would argue that these side effects are so small and so negligible that we shouldn’t talk about them, but the problem with doing that is if you’ve got a patient who has a preconceived idea that statins are harmful,” he added. “So having some empirical data where you can actually say: ‘Look, just 15 people out of 10,000 patients who’ve been treated for a year might experience one of those self-reported muscle symptoms,’ hopefully, will be helpful for physicians having discussions in practice.”
The analysis is “another data point indicating the overall safety and net benefit of statins for patients, even in primary prevention,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, chair of preventive medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
He noted that the renal insufficiency findings are difficult to interpret, given that the endpoint was defined as “any decline in renal function,” but that most will have been clinically unimportant. In general, most studies didn’t systematically look to ascertain some of adverse events but relied on participant or physician report. “Nonetheless, there is little reason to suspect bias in the collection of these data among the blinded studies.
“Although not definitive, given the study design and inclusion of very different types of studies and variable ascertainment of adverse events, the findings are reassuring that the risks of adverse events were small, and the potential adverse events identified were not very clinically significant and clearly outweighed by the important beneficial reductions in major cardiovascular events,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones.
“This study is yet another reminder of the safety of statins,” Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, a specialist in preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said in an email.
“I’m pleased to have a comprehensive study like this – a well-done, systematic review of randomized trials – to help combat the vast amounts of misinformation about statins circulating on the Internet.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones also acknowledged the need to address misinformation, pointing out that the loss of contact with physicians and the adverse effects of the pandemic on weight and other health behaviors mean that many patients have had worsening of their cardiovascular risk factors.
“We must continue to help patients and the public understand that statins are beneficial for patients at sufficient risk for cardiovascular disease because of elevated cholesterol or their total burden of risk factors,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. “We must also be upfront about the risks of potential side effects, which are uncommon and almost always very easily managed with washout and dose reduction or switching to a different drug in the same class.”
Analyses by type of statin, however, showed few significant differences in adverse events. Rosuvastatin was associated with increased risks for self-reported muscle symptoms, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions, whereas atorvastatin and lovastatin increased the risk for liver dysfunction.
In dose-response meta-analyses, a possible modest dose-response relationship was detected only for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction.
The current data do not support tailoring the type of statin or dosage to reduce adverse events, the authors say, although routine monitoring of liver function during treatment is probably warranted in primary prevention, given the increased risk for liver dysfunction.
To help improve adherence to statins, the investigators said, additional studies are needed to identify patient characteristics crucial to the small risks of adverse events.
Limitations of the research, they said, are that many of the analyses were underpowered to detect between-group differences, many trials had short periods of follow-up, and some trials excluded vulnerable people more likely to have adverse events, such as those with high serum creatinine.
The study was funded by a British Heart Foundation PhD Scholarship held by first author Ting Cai. Dr. Sheppard reports receiving funding from a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship. Disclosures for other authors are listed in the paper. Dr. Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Navar report having no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Testosterone replacement shows CV benefit in hypogonadal men
Data from a long-term study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for men with hypogonadism may reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Previous studies have yielded conflicting results on whether there is a benefit.
The latest results come from a study of 805 men with hypogonadism from Germany and Qatar who were followed for nearly a decade. For those who received parenteral testosterone 1,000 mg every 12 weeks, there were improvements in classical cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, lipid level, and inflammatory markers, whereas among those who chose not to take testosterone (control patients), all of these factors worsened.
In addition, there were only 16 deaths among patients in the TRT group, and none of the deaths were from myocardial infarction or stroke. In contrast, there were 74 deaths among the control patients, as well as 70 cases of MI and 59 strokes.
The men in the study were all at relatively high risk for cardiovascular adverse events. In the TRT group, the mean Framingham Risk score was 15.5; in the control group, it was 15.8. This translates into mean 10-year risks of 22.7% and 23.5%, respectively.
“Given that all these men would normally have been expected to suffer a heart attack or stroke in the next 5-10 years with no other intervention, it was a real surprise to see no cardiovascular events at all in the group on testosterone therapy. It’s clear that this treatment can significantly reduce the risks in this particular group,” commented lead investigator Omar Aboumarzouk, MD, from Hamad Medical in Doha, Qatar.
He presented the new data at the 2021 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.
Dr. Aboumarzouk emphasized, however, that, “while men need testosterone for certain psychological and biological functions, only those with low levels who display other symptoms are likely to benefit from testosterone therapy.”
Maarten Albersen, MD, a urologist at the University of Leuven (Belgium), who was not involved in the study, noted that, although the study showed a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality among the men who received TRT, the risk scores were in the intermediate range, and the men in the TRT group were slightly younger and were at slightly lower risk at baseline.
“The study was long enough to see differences in the rate of cardiovascular events. However, the numbers involved and the fact that the trial was not randomized mean it’s still difficult to draw any hard conclusions,” he said.
Registry study
The data came from a cumulative registry study begun in 2004 to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of TRT every 3 months in men with hypogonadism. The study, conducted in Bremen, Dresden, and Muenster in Germany, as well as in Doha, Qatar, is ongoing.
At total of 805 men were enrolled; 412 received TRT, and 393 declined testosterone replacement and served as control patients.
The investigators reported 10-year data. Statistical models controlled for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, total and HDL cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.
The median age at baseline was lower among those in the TRT arm, at 57.7 years versus 63.7 years for control patients (P < .001).
All classical cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity, glycemic control, lipid pattern, and C-reactive protein, improved in the TRT group and worsened in the control group.
Dr. Albersen noted that “a new trial is now underway, aiming to recruit 6,000 participants, and this should provide definitive answers on the cardiovascular risks or even benefits of hormone therapy in men with low testosterone.”
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Aboumarzouk and Dr. Albersen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data from a long-term study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for men with hypogonadism may reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Previous studies have yielded conflicting results on whether there is a benefit.
The latest results come from a study of 805 men with hypogonadism from Germany and Qatar who were followed for nearly a decade. For those who received parenteral testosterone 1,000 mg every 12 weeks, there were improvements in classical cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, lipid level, and inflammatory markers, whereas among those who chose not to take testosterone (control patients), all of these factors worsened.
In addition, there were only 16 deaths among patients in the TRT group, and none of the deaths were from myocardial infarction or stroke. In contrast, there were 74 deaths among the control patients, as well as 70 cases of MI and 59 strokes.
The men in the study were all at relatively high risk for cardiovascular adverse events. In the TRT group, the mean Framingham Risk score was 15.5; in the control group, it was 15.8. This translates into mean 10-year risks of 22.7% and 23.5%, respectively.
“Given that all these men would normally have been expected to suffer a heart attack or stroke in the next 5-10 years with no other intervention, it was a real surprise to see no cardiovascular events at all in the group on testosterone therapy. It’s clear that this treatment can significantly reduce the risks in this particular group,” commented lead investigator Omar Aboumarzouk, MD, from Hamad Medical in Doha, Qatar.
He presented the new data at the 2021 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.
Dr. Aboumarzouk emphasized, however, that, “while men need testosterone for certain psychological and biological functions, only those with low levels who display other symptoms are likely to benefit from testosterone therapy.”
Maarten Albersen, MD, a urologist at the University of Leuven (Belgium), who was not involved in the study, noted that, although the study showed a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality among the men who received TRT, the risk scores were in the intermediate range, and the men in the TRT group were slightly younger and were at slightly lower risk at baseline.
“The study was long enough to see differences in the rate of cardiovascular events. However, the numbers involved and the fact that the trial was not randomized mean it’s still difficult to draw any hard conclusions,” he said.
Registry study
The data came from a cumulative registry study begun in 2004 to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of TRT every 3 months in men with hypogonadism. The study, conducted in Bremen, Dresden, and Muenster in Germany, as well as in Doha, Qatar, is ongoing.
At total of 805 men were enrolled; 412 received TRT, and 393 declined testosterone replacement and served as control patients.
The investigators reported 10-year data. Statistical models controlled for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, total and HDL cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.
The median age at baseline was lower among those in the TRT arm, at 57.7 years versus 63.7 years for control patients (P < .001).
All classical cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity, glycemic control, lipid pattern, and C-reactive protein, improved in the TRT group and worsened in the control group.
Dr. Albersen noted that “a new trial is now underway, aiming to recruit 6,000 participants, and this should provide definitive answers on the cardiovascular risks or even benefits of hormone therapy in men with low testosterone.”
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Aboumarzouk and Dr. Albersen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data from a long-term study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for men with hypogonadism may reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Previous studies have yielded conflicting results on whether there is a benefit.
The latest results come from a study of 805 men with hypogonadism from Germany and Qatar who were followed for nearly a decade. For those who received parenteral testosterone 1,000 mg every 12 weeks, there were improvements in classical cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, lipid level, and inflammatory markers, whereas among those who chose not to take testosterone (control patients), all of these factors worsened.
In addition, there were only 16 deaths among patients in the TRT group, and none of the deaths were from myocardial infarction or stroke. In contrast, there were 74 deaths among the control patients, as well as 70 cases of MI and 59 strokes.
The men in the study were all at relatively high risk for cardiovascular adverse events. In the TRT group, the mean Framingham Risk score was 15.5; in the control group, it was 15.8. This translates into mean 10-year risks of 22.7% and 23.5%, respectively.
“Given that all these men would normally have been expected to suffer a heart attack or stroke in the next 5-10 years with no other intervention, it was a real surprise to see no cardiovascular events at all in the group on testosterone therapy. It’s clear that this treatment can significantly reduce the risks in this particular group,” commented lead investigator Omar Aboumarzouk, MD, from Hamad Medical in Doha, Qatar.
He presented the new data at the 2021 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.
Dr. Aboumarzouk emphasized, however, that, “while men need testosterone for certain psychological and biological functions, only those with low levels who display other symptoms are likely to benefit from testosterone therapy.”
Maarten Albersen, MD, a urologist at the University of Leuven (Belgium), who was not involved in the study, noted that, although the study showed a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality among the men who received TRT, the risk scores were in the intermediate range, and the men in the TRT group were slightly younger and were at slightly lower risk at baseline.
“The study was long enough to see differences in the rate of cardiovascular events. However, the numbers involved and the fact that the trial was not randomized mean it’s still difficult to draw any hard conclusions,” he said.
Registry study
The data came from a cumulative registry study begun in 2004 to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of TRT every 3 months in men with hypogonadism. The study, conducted in Bremen, Dresden, and Muenster in Germany, as well as in Doha, Qatar, is ongoing.
At total of 805 men were enrolled; 412 received TRT, and 393 declined testosterone replacement and served as control patients.
The investigators reported 10-year data. Statistical models controlled for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, total and HDL cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.
The median age at baseline was lower among those in the TRT arm, at 57.7 years versus 63.7 years for control patients (P < .001).
All classical cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity, glycemic control, lipid pattern, and C-reactive protein, improved in the TRT group and worsened in the control group.
Dr. Albersen noted that “a new trial is now underway, aiming to recruit 6,000 participants, and this should provide definitive answers on the cardiovascular risks or even benefits of hormone therapy in men with low testosterone.”
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Aboumarzouk and Dr. Albersen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
South Asian ancestry associated with twice the risk of heart disease
according to the results of a new study.
These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.
“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.
The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.
Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
Methods and results
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.
After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.
The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians
Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.
Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.
“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.
Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”
Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator
“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”
Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk
While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.
“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.
Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.
“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”
Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.
According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.
“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.
She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.
“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”
According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”
“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.
In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.
“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.
The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”
At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.
The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”
The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.
“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”
Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.
To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
according to the results of a new study.
These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.
“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.
The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.
Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
Methods and results
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.
After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.
The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians
Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.
Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.
“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.
Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”
Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator
“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”
Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk
While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.
“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.
Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.
“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”
Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.
According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.
“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.
She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.
“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”
According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”
“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.
In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.
“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.
The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”
At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.
The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”
The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.
“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”
Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.
To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
according to the results of a new study.
These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.
“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.
The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.
Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
Methods and results
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.
After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.
The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians
Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.
Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.
“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.
Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”
Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator
“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”
Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk
While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.
“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.
Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.
“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”
Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.
According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.
“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.
She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.
“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”
According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”
“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.
In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.
“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.
The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”
At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.
The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”
The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.
“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”
Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.
To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM CIRCULATION
Meta-analysis supports cardiovascular benefits of EPA
Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.
The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.
Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.
But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.
Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”
In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
Controversy continues
But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”
“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.
He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”
Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”
He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”
Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.
“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
38 trials included
For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.
Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.
A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).
A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).
A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.
A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).
Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).
Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).
Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).
An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.
They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.
“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.
“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.
The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.
Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.
But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.
Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”
In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
Controversy continues
But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”
“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.
He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”
Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”
He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”
Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.
“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
38 trials included
For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.
Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.
A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).
A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).
A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.
A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).
Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).
Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).
Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).
An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.
They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.
“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.
“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.
The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.
Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.
But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.
Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”
In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
Controversy continues
But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”
“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.
He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”
Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”
He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”
Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.
“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
38 trials included
For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.
Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.
A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).
A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).
A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.
Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.
A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).
Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).
Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).
Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).
An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.
They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.
“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.
“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA okays 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy for Abbott’s Xience stents
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Abbott announced on June 30.
Patients who receive stents are typically on DAPT regimens such as aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors for 6 to 12 months to prevent blood clots, but high-bleeding risk patients can experience bleeding during prolonged DAPT.
“The new FDA approval for DAPT for the XIENCE family of stents provides interventional cardiologists confidence they are delivering the best care to patients with high bleeding risk. A short DAPT duration minimizes risks for high bleeding risk patients and allows them to return to daily life sooner and with more assurance,” Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York and the global principal investigator for Abbott’s Short DAPT program (XIENCE 28 and XIENCE 90), said in a news release.
The new labeling comes on the heels of European CE Mark approval for the Xience stents with DAPT as short as 28 days, “giving Xience stents the shortest DAPT indication in the world,” the company noted.
Results of the XIENCE 28 trial were used to support the new CE Mark DAPT indication. The trial showed no increase in death of myocardial infarction between 1 and 6 months and a significantly lower risk for severe bleeding with the Xience stent and 1-month DAPT, compared with 6-month DAPT in more than 1,600 high-bleeding risk patients.
The XIENCE 90 trial involving more than 2,000 high-bleeding risk patients reported no difference in death or MI between 3 and 12 months with Xience and 3-month DAPT versus 12-month DAPT.
Abbott scored a second win, also announcing FDA and CE Mark approval of its next-generation Xience Skypoint stent in high-bleeding risk patients with 1-month DAPT.
“XIENCE Skypoint is easier to place and allows physicians to treat larger blood vessels through improved stent expansion that can open clogged vessels more effectively,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Abbott announced on June 30.
Patients who receive stents are typically on DAPT regimens such as aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors for 6 to 12 months to prevent blood clots, but high-bleeding risk patients can experience bleeding during prolonged DAPT.
“The new FDA approval for DAPT for the XIENCE family of stents provides interventional cardiologists confidence they are delivering the best care to patients with high bleeding risk. A short DAPT duration minimizes risks for high bleeding risk patients and allows them to return to daily life sooner and with more assurance,” Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York and the global principal investigator for Abbott’s Short DAPT program (XIENCE 28 and XIENCE 90), said in a news release.
The new labeling comes on the heels of European CE Mark approval for the Xience stents with DAPT as short as 28 days, “giving Xience stents the shortest DAPT indication in the world,” the company noted.
Results of the XIENCE 28 trial were used to support the new CE Mark DAPT indication. The trial showed no increase in death of myocardial infarction between 1 and 6 months and a significantly lower risk for severe bleeding with the Xience stent and 1-month DAPT, compared with 6-month DAPT in more than 1,600 high-bleeding risk patients.
The XIENCE 90 trial involving more than 2,000 high-bleeding risk patients reported no difference in death or MI between 3 and 12 months with Xience and 3-month DAPT versus 12-month DAPT.
Abbott scored a second win, also announcing FDA and CE Mark approval of its next-generation Xience Skypoint stent in high-bleeding risk patients with 1-month DAPT.
“XIENCE Skypoint is easier to place and allows physicians to treat larger blood vessels through improved stent expansion that can open clogged vessels more effectively,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Abbott announced on June 30.
Patients who receive stents are typically on DAPT regimens such as aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors for 6 to 12 months to prevent blood clots, but high-bleeding risk patients can experience bleeding during prolonged DAPT.
“The new FDA approval for DAPT for the XIENCE family of stents provides interventional cardiologists confidence they are delivering the best care to patients with high bleeding risk. A short DAPT duration minimizes risks for high bleeding risk patients and allows them to return to daily life sooner and with more assurance,” Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York and the global principal investigator for Abbott’s Short DAPT program (XIENCE 28 and XIENCE 90), said in a news release.
The new labeling comes on the heels of European CE Mark approval for the Xience stents with DAPT as short as 28 days, “giving Xience stents the shortest DAPT indication in the world,” the company noted.
Results of the XIENCE 28 trial were used to support the new CE Mark DAPT indication. The trial showed no increase in death of myocardial infarction between 1 and 6 months and a significantly lower risk for severe bleeding with the Xience stent and 1-month DAPT, compared with 6-month DAPT in more than 1,600 high-bleeding risk patients.
The XIENCE 90 trial involving more than 2,000 high-bleeding risk patients reported no difference in death or MI between 3 and 12 months with Xience and 3-month DAPT versus 12-month DAPT.
Abbott scored a second win, also announcing FDA and CE Mark approval of its next-generation Xience Skypoint stent in high-bleeding risk patients with 1-month DAPT.
“XIENCE Skypoint is easier to place and allows physicians to treat larger blood vessels through improved stent expansion that can open clogged vessels more effectively,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Midlife change in wealth may be costly for heart health
It found that upward wealth mobility relative to peers was independently associated with protection against cardiovascular disease after age 65. In contrast, downward wealth mobility during middle age was linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.
“A lot of studies have shown an inverse relationship between wealth and health in cross section at a single timepoint. What we really wanted to understand is whether this risk is modifiable and if this relationship changes over time,” senior author Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview.
The results were published online June 15 in JAMA Cardiology.
For the primary analysis, the researchers collected data from 5,579 U.S. adults aged 50 years and older with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline who participated in the RAND Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey that measures changes in health and wealth every 2 years. The participants had been interviewed in at least two of three 5-year age intervals (50-54, 55-59, 60-64 years) and had follow-up data available after age 65. Survey data from Jan. 1, 1992 to Dec. 31, 2016 was used.
Participants were grouped into quintiles based on wealth, defined as total nonhousing assets in 2012 U.S. dollars, and were further stratified by birth cohort (1931-1935, 1936-1940, 1941-1945, 1946-1950). Upward relative wealth mobility involved an increase of one or more wealth quintiles during the observation period, while downward relative wealth mobility was defined as a decrease of one or more wealth quintiles. Participants who remained in the same quintile were described as having stable wealth.
Across the birth cohorts, the bottom wealth quintile ranged from -$581,447 to $7,460 and the top wealth quintile ranged from $327,064 to $22,661,450.
Over a mean 16.9 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke occurred in 1,336 participants, including 22.5% whose wealth increased by one quintile versus 28.1% whose wealth decreased by one quintile.
In adjusted analyses, higher initial wealth was associated with lower cardiovascular risk after turning 65 (adjusted hazard ratio per quintile, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; P = .001). Additionally, experiencing relative upward wealth mobility by at least one quintile was independently associated with a lower risk of a nonfatal cardiovascular event or cardiovascular death, compared with stable wealth (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02).
Downward wealth mobility was associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32; P = .046). This effect was also observed on the risk of cardiovascular death in a secondary analysis of 3,360 participants who had a previous history of cardiovascular disease (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.93; P = .004).
“We estimate that each $100,000 increase in wealth was associated with a roughly 1% lower hazard of cardiovascular outcome in follow-up,” the authors write.
The protective effect of wealth on cardiovascular health may be the result of factors such as “better access to care, having more time to adhere to a healthier diet or exercise regularly, and reduced stress,” Kiarri Kershaw, PhD, a social epidemiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Dr. Kershaw, who was not involved in the study, added that “stress can affect health through both biological and behavioral pathways.”
The study did not find a statistical relationship between race, wealth, and health. However, it was observed that the overall risk of cardiovascular events among non-Hispanic Black and Black participants was lower. The authors noted that “these findings are likely a byproduct of collider bias, in which Black and Hispanic participants who experience downward wealth mobility are more likely to experience barriers to care and subsequently less likely to receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.”
Moving forward, the researchers plan to investigate health policy interventions that “best promote and sustain economic opportunity and wealth formed among low-income individuals,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.
The study was funded independently. Dr. Vaduganathan and Dr. Kershaw have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It found that upward wealth mobility relative to peers was independently associated with protection against cardiovascular disease after age 65. In contrast, downward wealth mobility during middle age was linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.
“A lot of studies have shown an inverse relationship between wealth and health in cross section at a single timepoint. What we really wanted to understand is whether this risk is modifiable and if this relationship changes over time,” senior author Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview.
The results were published online June 15 in JAMA Cardiology.
For the primary analysis, the researchers collected data from 5,579 U.S. adults aged 50 years and older with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline who participated in the RAND Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey that measures changes in health and wealth every 2 years. The participants had been interviewed in at least two of three 5-year age intervals (50-54, 55-59, 60-64 years) and had follow-up data available after age 65. Survey data from Jan. 1, 1992 to Dec. 31, 2016 was used.
Participants were grouped into quintiles based on wealth, defined as total nonhousing assets in 2012 U.S. dollars, and were further stratified by birth cohort (1931-1935, 1936-1940, 1941-1945, 1946-1950). Upward relative wealth mobility involved an increase of one or more wealth quintiles during the observation period, while downward relative wealth mobility was defined as a decrease of one or more wealth quintiles. Participants who remained in the same quintile were described as having stable wealth.
Across the birth cohorts, the bottom wealth quintile ranged from -$581,447 to $7,460 and the top wealth quintile ranged from $327,064 to $22,661,450.
Over a mean 16.9 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke occurred in 1,336 participants, including 22.5% whose wealth increased by one quintile versus 28.1% whose wealth decreased by one quintile.
In adjusted analyses, higher initial wealth was associated with lower cardiovascular risk after turning 65 (adjusted hazard ratio per quintile, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; P = .001). Additionally, experiencing relative upward wealth mobility by at least one quintile was independently associated with a lower risk of a nonfatal cardiovascular event or cardiovascular death, compared with stable wealth (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02).
Downward wealth mobility was associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32; P = .046). This effect was also observed on the risk of cardiovascular death in a secondary analysis of 3,360 participants who had a previous history of cardiovascular disease (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.93; P = .004).
“We estimate that each $100,000 increase in wealth was associated with a roughly 1% lower hazard of cardiovascular outcome in follow-up,” the authors write.
The protective effect of wealth on cardiovascular health may be the result of factors such as “better access to care, having more time to adhere to a healthier diet or exercise regularly, and reduced stress,” Kiarri Kershaw, PhD, a social epidemiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Dr. Kershaw, who was not involved in the study, added that “stress can affect health through both biological and behavioral pathways.”
The study did not find a statistical relationship between race, wealth, and health. However, it was observed that the overall risk of cardiovascular events among non-Hispanic Black and Black participants was lower. The authors noted that “these findings are likely a byproduct of collider bias, in which Black and Hispanic participants who experience downward wealth mobility are more likely to experience barriers to care and subsequently less likely to receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.”
Moving forward, the researchers plan to investigate health policy interventions that “best promote and sustain economic opportunity and wealth formed among low-income individuals,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.
The study was funded independently. Dr. Vaduganathan and Dr. Kershaw have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It found that upward wealth mobility relative to peers was independently associated with protection against cardiovascular disease after age 65. In contrast, downward wealth mobility during middle age was linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.
“A lot of studies have shown an inverse relationship between wealth and health in cross section at a single timepoint. What we really wanted to understand is whether this risk is modifiable and if this relationship changes over time,” senior author Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview.
The results were published online June 15 in JAMA Cardiology.
For the primary analysis, the researchers collected data from 5,579 U.S. adults aged 50 years and older with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline who participated in the RAND Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey that measures changes in health and wealth every 2 years. The participants had been interviewed in at least two of three 5-year age intervals (50-54, 55-59, 60-64 years) and had follow-up data available after age 65. Survey data from Jan. 1, 1992 to Dec. 31, 2016 was used.
Participants were grouped into quintiles based on wealth, defined as total nonhousing assets in 2012 U.S. dollars, and were further stratified by birth cohort (1931-1935, 1936-1940, 1941-1945, 1946-1950). Upward relative wealth mobility involved an increase of one or more wealth quintiles during the observation period, while downward relative wealth mobility was defined as a decrease of one or more wealth quintiles. Participants who remained in the same quintile were described as having stable wealth.
Across the birth cohorts, the bottom wealth quintile ranged from -$581,447 to $7,460 and the top wealth quintile ranged from $327,064 to $22,661,450.
Over a mean 16.9 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke occurred in 1,336 participants, including 22.5% whose wealth increased by one quintile versus 28.1% whose wealth decreased by one quintile.
In adjusted analyses, higher initial wealth was associated with lower cardiovascular risk after turning 65 (adjusted hazard ratio per quintile, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; P = .001). Additionally, experiencing relative upward wealth mobility by at least one quintile was independently associated with a lower risk of a nonfatal cardiovascular event or cardiovascular death, compared with stable wealth (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02).
Downward wealth mobility was associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32; P = .046). This effect was also observed on the risk of cardiovascular death in a secondary analysis of 3,360 participants who had a previous history of cardiovascular disease (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.93; P = .004).
“We estimate that each $100,000 increase in wealth was associated with a roughly 1% lower hazard of cardiovascular outcome in follow-up,” the authors write.
The protective effect of wealth on cardiovascular health may be the result of factors such as “better access to care, having more time to adhere to a healthier diet or exercise regularly, and reduced stress,” Kiarri Kershaw, PhD, a social epidemiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Dr. Kershaw, who was not involved in the study, added that “stress can affect health through both biological and behavioral pathways.”
The study did not find a statistical relationship between race, wealth, and health. However, it was observed that the overall risk of cardiovascular events among non-Hispanic Black and Black participants was lower. The authors noted that “these findings are likely a byproduct of collider bias, in which Black and Hispanic participants who experience downward wealth mobility are more likely to experience barriers to care and subsequently less likely to receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.”
Moving forward, the researchers plan to investigate health policy interventions that “best promote and sustain economic opportunity and wealth formed among low-income individuals,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.
The study was funded independently. Dr. Vaduganathan and Dr. Kershaw have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What’s best for diabetes after metformin? GRADE outdated at outset
Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.
. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions.
The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.
The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.
For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.
During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?
“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.
Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.
“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”
“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.
But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.
“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.
Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.
A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.
The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”
Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.
“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”
In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.
Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.
They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.
Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
A study with lots of data
The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m2, average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m2. The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.
Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.
Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.
The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.
Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin.
A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.
For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance.
Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.
And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.
Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)
And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes
Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.
The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.
But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.
GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.
. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions.
The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.
The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.
For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.
During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?
“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.
Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.
“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”
“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.
But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.
“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.
Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.
A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.
The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”
Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.
“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”
In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.
Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.
They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.
Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
A study with lots of data
The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m2, average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m2. The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.
Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.
Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.
The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.
Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin.
A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.
For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance.
Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.
And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.
Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)
And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes
Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.
The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.
But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.
GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.
. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions.
The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.
The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.
For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.
During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?
“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.
Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.
“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”
“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.
But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.
“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.
Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.
A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.
The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”
Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.
“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”
In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.
Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.
They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.
Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
A study with lots of data
The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m2, average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m2. The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.
Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.
Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.
The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.
Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin.
A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.
For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance.
Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.
And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.
Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)
And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes
Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.
The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.
But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.
GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
EAS lipid guidance: Start high-risk patients on combo drug
Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.
The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.
Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.
The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .
Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.
He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.
Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”
The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.
Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”
If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”
He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”
The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”
Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.
“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
Useful between updates
Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”
New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”
“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”
Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”
In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”
Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”
“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”
Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.
Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.
He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”
He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”
Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”
He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”
Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”
Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.
“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.
“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”
He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”
No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.
The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.
Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.
The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .
Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.
He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.
Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”
The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.
Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”
If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”
He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”
The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”
Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.
“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
Useful between updates
Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”
New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”
“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”
Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”
In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”
Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”
“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”
Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.
Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.
He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”
He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”
Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”
He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”
Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”
Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.
“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.
“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”
He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”
No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.
The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.
Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.
The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .
Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.
He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.
Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”
The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.
Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”
If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”
He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”
The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”
Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.
“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
Useful between updates
Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”
New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”
“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”
Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”
In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”
Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”
“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”
Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.
Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.
He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”
He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”
Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”
He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”
Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”
Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.
“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.
“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”
He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”
Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”
No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.