CAD & Atherosclerosis

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, 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.

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, 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.

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, 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.

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.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 1-month – as short as 28 days – dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) labeling for Xience stents in patients at high risk for bleeding, 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 has approved 1-month – as short as 28 days – dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) labeling for Xience stents in patients at high risk for bleeding, 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 has approved 1-month – as short as 28 days – dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) labeling for Xience stents in patients at high risk for bleeding, 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 changes in wealth may affect a patient’s risk of cardiovascular disease, a new cohort study suggests.

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.

Midlife changes in wealth may affect a patient’s risk of cardiovascular disease, a new cohort study suggests.

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.

Midlife changes in wealth may affect a patient’s risk of cardiovascular disease, a new cohort study suggests.

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.

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.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. 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.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. 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.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. 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.

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.

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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