User login
Remote cardio visits expand access for underserved during COVID
Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.
“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.
The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.
The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.
The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.
In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).
Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.
Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).
In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.
“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”
In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
An eye-opening study
Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.
“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”
An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.
“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”
Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.
“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”
Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.
“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”
Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.
“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.
In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.
“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”
Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.
“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.
The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.
The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.
The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.
In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).
Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.
Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).
In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.
“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”
In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
An eye-opening study
Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.
“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”
An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.
“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”
Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.
“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”
Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.
“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”
Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.
“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.
In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.
“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”
Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.
“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.
The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.
The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.
The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.
In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).
Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.
Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).
In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.
“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”
In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
An eye-opening study
Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.
“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”
An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.
“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”
Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.
“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”
Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.
“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”
Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.
“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.
In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.
“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”
Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel antiplatelet drug: Hope for efficacy without bleeding?
A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.
A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.
Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.
The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.
“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.
Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.
“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.
“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.
In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.
“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.
The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.
In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.
“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.
In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.
The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.
For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.
The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.
Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.
The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.
Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.
Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.
“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.
The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.
In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.
He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”
The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.
“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.
The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.
A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.
Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.
The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.
“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.
Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.
“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.
“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.
In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.
“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.
The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.
In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.
“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.
In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.
The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.
For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.
The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.
Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.
The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.
Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.
Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.
“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.
The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.
In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.
He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”
The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.
“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.
The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.
A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.
Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.
The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.
“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.
Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.
“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.
“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.
In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.
“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.
The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.
In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.
“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.
In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.
The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.
For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.
The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.
Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.
The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.
Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.
Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.
“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.
The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.
In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.
He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”
The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.
“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.
The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Risk for erectile dysfunction sixfold higher in men with COVID-19
COVID-19 increases the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) by nearly sixfold, according to data from the first study to investigate the association between ED and COVID-19 in young men in a real-life setting.
Men with ED are more than five times more likely to have COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.27).
For men with a history of COVID-19, the odds ratio of developing ED was 5.66. The strength of the association remained after adjusting for factors considered to affect ED.
The study, which was led by Emmanuele A. Jannini, MD, professor of endocrinology and medical sexology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, was published on March 20 in Andrology.
‘Mask up to keep it up’
ED can be both a short-term and a long-term complication of COVID-19, Dr. Jannini suggests.
“When offered, men should have the COVID vaccination. It also gives a whole new meaning to wearing the mask – mask up to keep it up,” he said. “It could possibly have the added benefit of preventing sexual dysfunction.”
He points out that older age, diabetes, high body mass index, and smoking increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“These are the same as risk factors for ED. Results of our study agree with the pathophysiological mechanisms linking ED, endothelial dysfunction, and COVID-19. Basically, endothelial dysfunction is common in both conditions [COVID-10 and ED].
“We would like to find some sort of biomarker of endothelial dysfunction post COVID, because it seems that there are many sequelae that coexist for a long time after infection,” added Dr. Jannini. “Asking a patient if they have ED after COVID might provide a measure of systemic wellness.”
Allan Pacey, MD, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield (England), welcomed the research, noting, “This seems to be a well-conducted study. However, at the moment, the relationship is just a correlation, and it might be that some of the comorbidities that increased the men’s chances of getting a significant COVID-19 infection may have also independently increased their chances of erectile dysfunction.
“But the authors offer a plausible mechanism by which COVID-19 may impact directly on erectile function,” agrees Dr. Pacey. However, “There’s more work to be done,” he said. “I’d also argue it’s a good reason for men to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and take the vaccine when it’s offered to them.”
Urologist John Mulhall, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, remarked, “It was a highly preliminary study, but the data are suggestive of a potential link between COVID-19 infection and ED.
“However, it raises enough questions such that further large, more long-term analyses are required to define causation. Future studies assessing testosterone levels and erectile hemodynamics will be needed to provide definite evidence of a causative link,» he stressed.
Erectile problems a ‘hallmark’ of systemic endothelial dysfunction
Prior research has suggested that asymptomatic COVID-19 could be associated with subclinical microvascular involvement with long-term cardiovascular effects.
“Indeed, COVID-19 is by all means an endothelial disease, in which systemic manifestations ... can potentially be due to alterations in the endothelial thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance,” emphasized Dr. Jannini. “In addition, endothelial cells express many of the cofactors used by SARS-CoV-2 to invade host cells.
“Erectile dysfunction has often been considered a hallmark of endothelial dysfunction, and as such, a potential association between ED and COVID-19 has also been postulated and underpinned the investigation in this study,” he explained.
The study was predicated on the fact that ED is often considered a clinical marker of impaired overall health status, which often features cardiovascular events at an early age. It aimed to investigate the bidirectional relationship between COVID-19 and ED. It asked whether ED could be a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 and whether having COVID-19 predisposes to developing ED.
“This would possibly suggest that men with ED, due to the underlying conditions which impair erectile response, could also be more susceptible to contracting COVID-19,” said Dr. Jannini.
Data were drawn from the Sex@COVID online survey, which was conducted from April 7 to May 4, 2020, in Italy. The survey included 6,821 participants aged 18 years or older (4,177 women; 2,644 men; mean age, 32.83 ± 11.24 years). Participants were stratified on the basis of marital status and sexual activity during lockdown. From these participants, 985 sexually active men were identified, among whom 25 (2.54%) reported having tested positive for COVID-19. These persons were matched with 75 COVID-19–negative men using propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio.
The researchers used standardized psychometric tools to measure the effects of lockdown and social distancing on the intrapsychic, relational, and sexual health of the participants.
Erectile function was measured with the International Index of Erectile Function or the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, which are often used in clinical settings. In light of the two-way interaction between sexual activity and psychological well-being, results were adjusted for any influence of anxiety and depression, which were measured with recognized scales for use in patients with a history of COVID-19.
Results showed that the prevalence of ED was significantly higher among men who self-reported a history of COVID-19, compared with a matching COVID-negative population (28% vs. 9.33%; P = .027).
After adjusting for variables that are considered to have a bearing on the development of ED, such as psychological status, age, and BMI, the odds ratio for developing ED after having had COVID-19 was 5.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-24.01).
Similarly, after adjusting for age and BMI, men with ED were more likely to have COVID‐19 (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.49-20.09).
The authors note that persons who experience “a sudden onset or worsening of ED might also consider precautionary quarantine or nasopharyngeal swab, as COVID‐19 might act as a potential initiating trigger for the onset of erectile impairment, or an aggravating factor for its progression to more severe forms.”
Similarly, patients who have ED “should consider their erectile impairment as a sign of possible underlying conditions that could increase the likelihood of suffering from COVID‐19,” they write.
Dr. Mulhall highlighted several limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, recall bias associated with the use of online questionnaires, and the inclusion of COVID‐19 diagnoses that were based on the response to the survey rather than on testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. In addition, comorbidity data were incomplete, and there was no indication of duration after COVID-19 infection, the severity of COVID-19, or the severity of ED.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pacey is chairman of the advisory committee of the U.K. National External Quality Assurance Schemes in Andrology, editor-in-chief of Human Fertility, trustee of the Progress Educational Trust, and trustee of the British Fertility Society (all unpaid). Dr. Mulhall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 increases the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) by nearly sixfold, according to data from the first study to investigate the association between ED and COVID-19 in young men in a real-life setting.
Men with ED are more than five times more likely to have COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.27).
For men with a history of COVID-19, the odds ratio of developing ED was 5.66. The strength of the association remained after adjusting for factors considered to affect ED.
The study, which was led by Emmanuele A. Jannini, MD, professor of endocrinology and medical sexology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, was published on March 20 in Andrology.
‘Mask up to keep it up’
ED can be both a short-term and a long-term complication of COVID-19, Dr. Jannini suggests.
“When offered, men should have the COVID vaccination. It also gives a whole new meaning to wearing the mask – mask up to keep it up,” he said. “It could possibly have the added benefit of preventing sexual dysfunction.”
He points out that older age, diabetes, high body mass index, and smoking increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“These are the same as risk factors for ED. Results of our study agree with the pathophysiological mechanisms linking ED, endothelial dysfunction, and COVID-19. Basically, endothelial dysfunction is common in both conditions [COVID-10 and ED].
“We would like to find some sort of biomarker of endothelial dysfunction post COVID, because it seems that there are many sequelae that coexist for a long time after infection,” added Dr. Jannini. “Asking a patient if they have ED after COVID might provide a measure of systemic wellness.”
Allan Pacey, MD, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield (England), welcomed the research, noting, “This seems to be a well-conducted study. However, at the moment, the relationship is just a correlation, and it might be that some of the comorbidities that increased the men’s chances of getting a significant COVID-19 infection may have also independently increased their chances of erectile dysfunction.
“But the authors offer a plausible mechanism by which COVID-19 may impact directly on erectile function,” agrees Dr. Pacey. However, “There’s more work to be done,” he said. “I’d also argue it’s a good reason for men to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and take the vaccine when it’s offered to them.”
Urologist John Mulhall, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, remarked, “It was a highly preliminary study, but the data are suggestive of a potential link between COVID-19 infection and ED.
“However, it raises enough questions such that further large, more long-term analyses are required to define causation. Future studies assessing testosterone levels and erectile hemodynamics will be needed to provide definite evidence of a causative link,» he stressed.
Erectile problems a ‘hallmark’ of systemic endothelial dysfunction
Prior research has suggested that asymptomatic COVID-19 could be associated with subclinical microvascular involvement with long-term cardiovascular effects.
“Indeed, COVID-19 is by all means an endothelial disease, in which systemic manifestations ... can potentially be due to alterations in the endothelial thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance,” emphasized Dr. Jannini. “In addition, endothelial cells express many of the cofactors used by SARS-CoV-2 to invade host cells.
“Erectile dysfunction has often been considered a hallmark of endothelial dysfunction, and as such, a potential association between ED and COVID-19 has also been postulated and underpinned the investigation in this study,” he explained.
The study was predicated on the fact that ED is often considered a clinical marker of impaired overall health status, which often features cardiovascular events at an early age. It aimed to investigate the bidirectional relationship between COVID-19 and ED. It asked whether ED could be a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 and whether having COVID-19 predisposes to developing ED.
“This would possibly suggest that men with ED, due to the underlying conditions which impair erectile response, could also be more susceptible to contracting COVID-19,” said Dr. Jannini.
Data were drawn from the Sex@COVID online survey, which was conducted from April 7 to May 4, 2020, in Italy. The survey included 6,821 participants aged 18 years or older (4,177 women; 2,644 men; mean age, 32.83 ± 11.24 years). Participants were stratified on the basis of marital status and sexual activity during lockdown. From these participants, 985 sexually active men were identified, among whom 25 (2.54%) reported having tested positive for COVID-19. These persons were matched with 75 COVID-19–negative men using propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio.
The researchers used standardized psychometric tools to measure the effects of lockdown and social distancing on the intrapsychic, relational, and sexual health of the participants.
Erectile function was measured with the International Index of Erectile Function or the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, which are often used in clinical settings. In light of the two-way interaction between sexual activity and psychological well-being, results were adjusted for any influence of anxiety and depression, which were measured with recognized scales for use in patients with a history of COVID-19.
Results showed that the prevalence of ED was significantly higher among men who self-reported a history of COVID-19, compared with a matching COVID-negative population (28% vs. 9.33%; P = .027).
After adjusting for variables that are considered to have a bearing on the development of ED, such as psychological status, age, and BMI, the odds ratio for developing ED after having had COVID-19 was 5.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-24.01).
Similarly, after adjusting for age and BMI, men with ED were more likely to have COVID‐19 (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.49-20.09).
The authors note that persons who experience “a sudden onset or worsening of ED might also consider precautionary quarantine or nasopharyngeal swab, as COVID‐19 might act as a potential initiating trigger for the onset of erectile impairment, or an aggravating factor for its progression to more severe forms.”
Similarly, patients who have ED “should consider their erectile impairment as a sign of possible underlying conditions that could increase the likelihood of suffering from COVID‐19,” they write.
Dr. Mulhall highlighted several limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, recall bias associated with the use of online questionnaires, and the inclusion of COVID‐19 diagnoses that were based on the response to the survey rather than on testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. In addition, comorbidity data were incomplete, and there was no indication of duration after COVID-19 infection, the severity of COVID-19, or the severity of ED.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pacey is chairman of the advisory committee of the U.K. National External Quality Assurance Schemes in Andrology, editor-in-chief of Human Fertility, trustee of the Progress Educational Trust, and trustee of the British Fertility Society (all unpaid). Dr. Mulhall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 increases the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED) by nearly sixfold, according to data from the first study to investigate the association between ED and COVID-19 in young men in a real-life setting.
Men with ED are more than five times more likely to have COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.27).
For men with a history of COVID-19, the odds ratio of developing ED was 5.66. The strength of the association remained after adjusting for factors considered to affect ED.
The study, which was led by Emmanuele A. Jannini, MD, professor of endocrinology and medical sexology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, was published on March 20 in Andrology.
‘Mask up to keep it up’
ED can be both a short-term and a long-term complication of COVID-19, Dr. Jannini suggests.
“When offered, men should have the COVID vaccination. It also gives a whole new meaning to wearing the mask – mask up to keep it up,” he said. “It could possibly have the added benefit of preventing sexual dysfunction.”
He points out that older age, diabetes, high body mass index, and smoking increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“These are the same as risk factors for ED. Results of our study agree with the pathophysiological mechanisms linking ED, endothelial dysfunction, and COVID-19. Basically, endothelial dysfunction is common in both conditions [COVID-10 and ED].
“We would like to find some sort of biomarker of endothelial dysfunction post COVID, because it seems that there are many sequelae that coexist for a long time after infection,” added Dr. Jannini. “Asking a patient if they have ED after COVID might provide a measure of systemic wellness.”
Allan Pacey, MD, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield (England), welcomed the research, noting, “This seems to be a well-conducted study. However, at the moment, the relationship is just a correlation, and it might be that some of the comorbidities that increased the men’s chances of getting a significant COVID-19 infection may have also independently increased their chances of erectile dysfunction.
“But the authors offer a plausible mechanism by which COVID-19 may impact directly on erectile function,” agrees Dr. Pacey. However, “There’s more work to be done,” he said. “I’d also argue it’s a good reason for men to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and take the vaccine when it’s offered to them.”
Urologist John Mulhall, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, remarked, “It was a highly preliminary study, but the data are suggestive of a potential link between COVID-19 infection and ED.
“However, it raises enough questions such that further large, more long-term analyses are required to define causation. Future studies assessing testosterone levels and erectile hemodynamics will be needed to provide definite evidence of a causative link,» he stressed.
Erectile problems a ‘hallmark’ of systemic endothelial dysfunction
Prior research has suggested that asymptomatic COVID-19 could be associated with subclinical microvascular involvement with long-term cardiovascular effects.
“Indeed, COVID-19 is by all means an endothelial disease, in which systemic manifestations ... can potentially be due to alterations in the endothelial thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance,” emphasized Dr. Jannini. “In addition, endothelial cells express many of the cofactors used by SARS-CoV-2 to invade host cells.
“Erectile dysfunction has often been considered a hallmark of endothelial dysfunction, and as such, a potential association between ED and COVID-19 has also been postulated and underpinned the investigation in this study,” he explained.
The study was predicated on the fact that ED is often considered a clinical marker of impaired overall health status, which often features cardiovascular events at an early age. It aimed to investigate the bidirectional relationship between COVID-19 and ED. It asked whether ED could be a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 and whether having COVID-19 predisposes to developing ED.
“This would possibly suggest that men with ED, due to the underlying conditions which impair erectile response, could also be more susceptible to contracting COVID-19,” said Dr. Jannini.
Data were drawn from the Sex@COVID online survey, which was conducted from April 7 to May 4, 2020, in Italy. The survey included 6,821 participants aged 18 years or older (4,177 women; 2,644 men; mean age, 32.83 ± 11.24 years). Participants were stratified on the basis of marital status and sexual activity during lockdown. From these participants, 985 sexually active men were identified, among whom 25 (2.54%) reported having tested positive for COVID-19. These persons were matched with 75 COVID-19–negative men using propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio.
The researchers used standardized psychometric tools to measure the effects of lockdown and social distancing on the intrapsychic, relational, and sexual health of the participants.
Erectile function was measured with the International Index of Erectile Function or the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, which are often used in clinical settings. In light of the two-way interaction between sexual activity and psychological well-being, results were adjusted for any influence of anxiety and depression, which were measured with recognized scales for use in patients with a history of COVID-19.
Results showed that the prevalence of ED was significantly higher among men who self-reported a history of COVID-19, compared with a matching COVID-negative population (28% vs. 9.33%; P = .027).
After adjusting for variables that are considered to have a bearing on the development of ED, such as psychological status, age, and BMI, the odds ratio for developing ED after having had COVID-19 was 5.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-24.01).
Similarly, after adjusting for age and BMI, men with ED were more likely to have COVID‐19 (OR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.49-20.09).
The authors note that persons who experience “a sudden onset or worsening of ED might also consider precautionary quarantine or nasopharyngeal swab, as COVID‐19 might act as a potential initiating trigger for the onset of erectile impairment, or an aggravating factor for its progression to more severe forms.”
Similarly, patients who have ED “should consider their erectile impairment as a sign of possible underlying conditions that could increase the likelihood of suffering from COVID‐19,” they write.
Dr. Mulhall highlighted several limitations of the study, including its retrospective nature, recall bias associated with the use of online questionnaires, and the inclusion of COVID‐19 diagnoses that were based on the response to the survey rather than on testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. In addition, comorbidity data were incomplete, and there was no indication of duration after COVID-19 infection, the severity of COVID-19, or the severity of ED.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pacey is chairman of the advisory committee of the U.K. National External Quality Assurance Schemes in Andrology, editor-in-chief of Human Fertility, trustee of the Progress Educational Trust, and trustee of the British Fertility Society (all unpaid). Dr. Mulhall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular disease remains leading cause of type 2 diabetes mortality
Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.
After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.
Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.
It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.
Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.
After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.
Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.
It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.
Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.
After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.
Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.
It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
FDA okays new indication for alirocumab in homozygous FH
The Food and Drug Administration has approved alirocumab (Praluent, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) injection as add-on therapy for adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the agency announced.
The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor was originally approved in the United States in 2015 as an adjunct to diet, alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering therapies, to reduce LDL cholesterol in adults with primary hyperlipidemia, including heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).
Heterozygous FH is one of the most common genetic disorders, affecting 1 in every 200-500 people worldwide, whereas homozygous FH is very rare, affecting about 1 in 1 million people worldwide.
Alirocumab is also approved to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adults with cardiovascular disease.
The new indication is based on a 12-week randomized trial in 45 adults who received 150 mg alirocumab every 2 weeks and 24 patients who received placebo, both on top of other therapies to reduce LDL cholesterol. At week 12, patients receiving alirocumab had an average 27% decrease in LDL cholesterol, compared with an average 9% increase among patients on placebo.
Common side effects of alirocumab are nasopharyngitis, injection-site reactions, and influenza. Serious hypersensitivity reactions have occurred among people taking alirocumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved alirocumab (Praluent, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) injection as add-on therapy for adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the agency announced.
The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor was originally approved in the United States in 2015 as an adjunct to diet, alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering therapies, to reduce LDL cholesterol in adults with primary hyperlipidemia, including heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).
Heterozygous FH is one of the most common genetic disorders, affecting 1 in every 200-500 people worldwide, whereas homozygous FH is very rare, affecting about 1 in 1 million people worldwide.
Alirocumab is also approved to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adults with cardiovascular disease.
The new indication is based on a 12-week randomized trial in 45 adults who received 150 mg alirocumab every 2 weeks and 24 patients who received placebo, both on top of other therapies to reduce LDL cholesterol. At week 12, patients receiving alirocumab had an average 27% decrease in LDL cholesterol, compared with an average 9% increase among patients on placebo.
Common side effects of alirocumab are nasopharyngitis, injection-site reactions, and influenza. Serious hypersensitivity reactions have occurred among people taking alirocumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved alirocumab (Praluent, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) injection as add-on therapy for adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the agency announced.
The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor was originally approved in the United States in 2015 as an adjunct to diet, alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering therapies, to reduce LDL cholesterol in adults with primary hyperlipidemia, including heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).
Heterozygous FH is one of the most common genetic disorders, affecting 1 in every 200-500 people worldwide, whereas homozygous FH is very rare, affecting about 1 in 1 million people worldwide.
Alirocumab is also approved to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adults with cardiovascular disease.
The new indication is based on a 12-week randomized trial in 45 adults who received 150 mg alirocumab every 2 weeks and 24 patients who received placebo, both on top of other therapies to reduce LDL cholesterol. At week 12, patients receiving alirocumab had an average 27% decrease in LDL cholesterol, compared with an average 9% increase among patients on placebo.
Common side effects of alirocumab are nasopharyngitis, injection-site reactions, and influenza. Serious hypersensitivity reactions have occurred among people taking alirocumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The best exercises for BP control? European statement sorts it out
Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.
Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.
The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.
The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).
By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.
“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”
Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).
The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.
The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:
- Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
- High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
- Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.
They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.
The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.
Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.
“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”
The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.
“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”
Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.
Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.
Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.
The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.
The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).
By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.
“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”
Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).
The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.
The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:
- Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
- High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
- Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.
They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.
The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.
Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.
“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”
The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.
“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”
Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.
Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.
Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.
The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.
The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).
By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.
“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”
Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).
The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.
The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:
- Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
- High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
- Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.
They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.
The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.
Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.
“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”
The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.
“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”
Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
ApoB may better predict mortality risk in statin-treated patients
A new study shows apolipoprotein B (apoB) and non-HDL cholesterol – but not LDL cholesterol – are associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction in patients taking statins.
Moreover, apoB was a more accurate marker of all-cause mortality risk than non-HDL or LDL cholesterol and was more accurate at identifying MI risk than LDL cholesterol.
“Any patient that comes to a doctor for evaluation, if statin treatment is sufficient, the doctor should look not only at LDL cholesterol but HDL cholesterol and apoB, if its available – that is the take-home message,” senior author Børge Grønne Nordestgaard, MD, DMSC, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.
The findings are very relevant to clinical practice because international guidelines focus on LDL cholesterol and “many doctors are brainwashed that that is the only thing they should look at, just to keep LDL cholesterol down,” he said. “I’ve worked for years with triglyceride lipoproteins, what I call remnant cholesterol, and I think that the risk is very high also when you have high remnant cholesterol.”
Previous work has shown that apoB and non-HDL cholesterol better reflect atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than LDL cholesterol. This is the first study, however, to show that elevated apoB and non-HDL cholesterol are associated with a higher risk for all-cause death in statin-treated patients with low LDL cholesterol, Dr. Nordestgaard noted.
The investigators compared outcomes among 13,015 statin-treated participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study using median baseline values of 92 mg/dL for apoB, 3.1 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) for non-HDL cholesterol, and 2.3 mmol/L (89 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol. Over a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2,499 deaths and 537 MIs.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, discordant apoB above the median with LDL cholesterol below was associated with a 21% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36) and 49% increased risk for MI (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), compared with concordant apoB and LDL cholesterol below the medians.
Similar results were found for discordant non-HDL cholesterol above the median with low LDL cholesterol for all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36) and MI (1.78; 95% CI, 1.35-2.34).
No such associations with mortality or MI were observed when LDL cholesterol was above the median and apoB or non-HDL below.
Additional analyses showed that high apoB with low non-HDL cholesterol was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41), whereas high non-HDL cholesterol with low apoB was associated with a lower risk (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92).
Current guidelines define apoB greater than 130 mg/dL as a risk modifier in patients not using statins but, the authors wrote, “based on our results, the threshold for apoB as a risk modifier in statin-treated patients should be closer to 92 mg/dL than to 130 mg/dL.”
In an accompanying editorial, Neil J. Stone, MD, and Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, both from Northwestern University, Chicago, said that American and European guidelines acknowledge the usefulness of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol in their risk algorithms and as possible targets to indicate efficacy, but don’t give a strong recommendation for apoB to assess residual risk.
“This paper suggests that, in the next iteration, we’ve got to give a stronger thought to measuring apoB for residual risk in those with secondary prevention,” Dr. Stone, vice chair of the 2018 American Heart Association/ACC cholesterol guidelines, said in an interview.
“The whole part of the guidelines was not to focus on any one number but to focus on the clinical risk as a whole,” he said. “You can enlarge your understanding of the patient by looking at their non-HDL, which you have anyway, and in certain circumstances, for example, people with metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity, or high triglycerides, those people might very well benefit from an apoB to further understand their risk. This paper simply highlights that and, therefore, was very valuable.”
Dr. Stone and Dr. Lloyd-Jones, however, pointed out that statin use was self-reported and information was lacking on adherence, dose intensity, and the amount of LDL cholesterol lowering from baseline. LDL cholesterol levels were also above current recommendations for optimizing risk reduction. “If statin dosing and LDL [cholesterol] were not optimized already, then there may have been ‘room’ for non-HDL [cholesterol] and apoB to add value in understanding residual risk,” they wrote.
The editorialists suggested that sequential use, rather than regular use, of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol may be best and that incorporating this information may be particularly beneficial for patients with metabolic disorders and elevated triglycerides after statin therapy.
“Maybe this paper is a wake-up call that there are other markers out there that can tell you that you still have higher risk and need to tighten up lifestyle and maybe be more adherent,” Dr. Stone said. “I think this is a wonderful chance to say that preventive cardiology isn’t just ‘set it and forget it’.”
C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, who coauthored the 2018 cholesterol guidelines, agreed there’s “an overexuberant focus on LDL [cholesterol] for residual risk” and highlighted a recent systematic review of statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 cardiovascular outcomes trials that showed very little gain from aggressively driving down LDL below 100 mg/dL, unless the patient is at extremely high risk.
“If I, as a treating cardiologist who spends a lot of time on lipids, had a patient on a high-intensity statin and they didn’t drop [their LDL cholesterol] 50% and I already had them going to cardiac rehab and they were already losing weight, would I measure apoB? Yeah, I might, to motivate them to do more or to take Vascepa,” she said.
“This study is a useful addition to a relatively important problem, which is residual risk, and really supports personalized or precision medicine,” added Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “But now we have to do the work and do an intervention trial in these people and see whether these markers make a difference.”
The study was supported by Herlev and Gentofte Hospital’s Research Fund and the department of clinical biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital. Dr. Nordestgaard has had consultancies or talks sponsored by AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Esperion, Kowa, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics. All other authors, Dr. Stone, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones reported no conflicts. Dr. Merz reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study shows apolipoprotein B (apoB) and non-HDL cholesterol – but not LDL cholesterol – are associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction in patients taking statins.
Moreover, apoB was a more accurate marker of all-cause mortality risk than non-HDL or LDL cholesterol and was more accurate at identifying MI risk than LDL cholesterol.
“Any patient that comes to a doctor for evaluation, if statin treatment is sufficient, the doctor should look not only at LDL cholesterol but HDL cholesterol and apoB, if its available – that is the take-home message,” senior author Børge Grønne Nordestgaard, MD, DMSC, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.
The findings are very relevant to clinical practice because international guidelines focus on LDL cholesterol and “many doctors are brainwashed that that is the only thing they should look at, just to keep LDL cholesterol down,” he said. “I’ve worked for years with triglyceride lipoproteins, what I call remnant cholesterol, and I think that the risk is very high also when you have high remnant cholesterol.”
Previous work has shown that apoB and non-HDL cholesterol better reflect atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than LDL cholesterol. This is the first study, however, to show that elevated apoB and non-HDL cholesterol are associated with a higher risk for all-cause death in statin-treated patients with low LDL cholesterol, Dr. Nordestgaard noted.
The investigators compared outcomes among 13,015 statin-treated participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study using median baseline values of 92 mg/dL for apoB, 3.1 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) for non-HDL cholesterol, and 2.3 mmol/L (89 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol. Over a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2,499 deaths and 537 MIs.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, discordant apoB above the median with LDL cholesterol below was associated with a 21% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36) and 49% increased risk for MI (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), compared with concordant apoB and LDL cholesterol below the medians.
Similar results were found for discordant non-HDL cholesterol above the median with low LDL cholesterol for all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36) and MI (1.78; 95% CI, 1.35-2.34).
No such associations with mortality or MI were observed when LDL cholesterol was above the median and apoB or non-HDL below.
Additional analyses showed that high apoB with low non-HDL cholesterol was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41), whereas high non-HDL cholesterol with low apoB was associated with a lower risk (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92).
Current guidelines define apoB greater than 130 mg/dL as a risk modifier in patients not using statins but, the authors wrote, “based on our results, the threshold for apoB as a risk modifier in statin-treated patients should be closer to 92 mg/dL than to 130 mg/dL.”
In an accompanying editorial, Neil J. Stone, MD, and Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, both from Northwestern University, Chicago, said that American and European guidelines acknowledge the usefulness of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol in their risk algorithms and as possible targets to indicate efficacy, but don’t give a strong recommendation for apoB to assess residual risk.
“This paper suggests that, in the next iteration, we’ve got to give a stronger thought to measuring apoB for residual risk in those with secondary prevention,” Dr. Stone, vice chair of the 2018 American Heart Association/ACC cholesterol guidelines, said in an interview.
“The whole part of the guidelines was not to focus on any one number but to focus on the clinical risk as a whole,” he said. “You can enlarge your understanding of the patient by looking at their non-HDL, which you have anyway, and in certain circumstances, for example, people with metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity, or high triglycerides, those people might very well benefit from an apoB to further understand their risk. This paper simply highlights that and, therefore, was very valuable.”
Dr. Stone and Dr. Lloyd-Jones, however, pointed out that statin use was self-reported and information was lacking on adherence, dose intensity, and the amount of LDL cholesterol lowering from baseline. LDL cholesterol levels were also above current recommendations for optimizing risk reduction. “If statin dosing and LDL [cholesterol] were not optimized already, then there may have been ‘room’ for non-HDL [cholesterol] and apoB to add value in understanding residual risk,” they wrote.
The editorialists suggested that sequential use, rather than regular use, of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol may be best and that incorporating this information may be particularly beneficial for patients with metabolic disorders and elevated triglycerides after statin therapy.
“Maybe this paper is a wake-up call that there are other markers out there that can tell you that you still have higher risk and need to tighten up lifestyle and maybe be more adherent,” Dr. Stone said. “I think this is a wonderful chance to say that preventive cardiology isn’t just ‘set it and forget it’.”
C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, who coauthored the 2018 cholesterol guidelines, agreed there’s “an overexuberant focus on LDL [cholesterol] for residual risk” and highlighted a recent systematic review of statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 cardiovascular outcomes trials that showed very little gain from aggressively driving down LDL below 100 mg/dL, unless the patient is at extremely high risk.
“If I, as a treating cardiologist who spends a lot of time on lipids, had a patient on a high-intensity statin and they didn’t drop [their LDL cholesterol] 50% and I already had them going to cardiac rehab and they were already losing weight, would I measure apoB? Yeah, I might, to motivate them to do more or to take Vascepa,” she said.
“This study is a useful addition to a relatively important problem, which is residual risk, and really supports personalized or precision medicine,” added Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “But now we have to do the work and do an intervention trial in these people and see whether these markers make a difference.”
The study was supported by Herlev and Gentofte Hospital’s Research Fund and the department of clinical biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital. Dr. Nordestgaard has had consultancies or talks sponsored by AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Esperion, Kowa, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics. All other authors, Dr. Stone, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones reported no conflicts. Dr. Merz reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study shows apolipoprotein B (apoB) and non-HDL cholesterol – but not LDL cholesterol – are associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction in patients taking statins.
Moreover, apoB was a more accurate marker of all-cause mortality risk than non-HDL or LDL cholesterol and was more accurate at identifying MI risk than LDL cholesterol.
“Any patient that comes to a doctor for evaluation, if statin treatment is sufficient, the doctor should look not only at LDL cholesterol but HDL cholesterol and apoB, if its available – that is the take-home message,” senior author Børge Grønne Nordestgaard, MD, DMSC, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.
The findings are very relevant to clinical practice because international guidelines focus on LDL cholesterol and “many doctors are brainwashed that that is the only thing they should look at, just to keep LDL cholesterol down,” he said. “I’ve worked for years with triglyceride lipoproteins, what I call remnant cholesterol, and I think that the risk is very high also when you have high remnant cholesterol.”
Previous work has shown that apoB and non-HDL cholesterol better reflect atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than LDL cholesterol. This is the first study, however, to show that elevated apoB and non-HDL cholesterol are associated with a higher risk for all-cause death in statin-treated patients with low LDL cholesterol, Dr. Nordestgaard noted.
The investigators compared outcomes among 13,015 statin-treated participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study using median baseline values of 92 mg/dL for apoB, 3.1 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) for non-HDL cholesterol, and 2.3 mmol/L (89 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol. Over a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2,499 deaths and 537 MIs.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, discordant apoB above the median with LDL cholesterol below was associated with a 21% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36) and 49% increased risk for MI (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), compared with concordant apoB and LDL cholesterol below the medians.
Similar results were found for discordant non-HDL cholesterol above the median with low LDL cholesterol for all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36) and MI (1.78; 95% CI, 1.35-2.34).
No such associations with mortality or MI were observed when LDL cholesterol was above the median and apoB or non-HDL below.
Additional analyses showed that high apoB with low non-HDL cholesterol was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41), whereas high non-HDL cholesterol with low apoB was associated with a lower risk (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92).
Current guidelines define apoB greater than 130 mg/dL as a risk modifier in patients not using statins but, the authors wrote, “based on our results, the threshold for apoB as a risk modifier in statin-treated patients should be closer to 92 mg/dL than to 130 mg/dL.”
In an accompanying editorial, Neil J. Stone, MD, and Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, both from Northwestern University, Chicago, said that American and European guidelines acknowledge the usefulness of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol in their risk algorithms and as possible targets to indicate efficacy, but don’t give a strong recommendation for apoB to assess residual risk.
“This paper suggests that, in the next iteration, we’ve got to give a stronger thought to measuring apoB for residual risk in those with secondary prevention,” Dr. Stone, vice chair of the 2018 American Heart Association/ACC cholesterol guidelines, said in an interview.
“The whole part of the guidelines was not to focus on any one number but to focus on the clinical risk as a whole,” he said. “You can enlarge your understanding of the patient by looking at their non-HDL, which you have anyway, and in certain circumstances, for example, people with metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity, or high triglycerides, those people might very well benefit from an apoB to further understand their risk. This paper simply highlights that and, therefore, was very valuable.”
Dr. Stone and Dr. Lloyd-Jones, however, pointed out that statin use was self-reported and information was lacking on adherence, dose intensity, and the amount of LDL cholesterol lowering from baseline. LDL cholesterol levels were also above current recommendations for optimizing risk reduction. “If statin dosing and LDL [cholesterol] were not optimized already, then there may have been ‘room’ for non-HDL [cholesterol] and apoB to add value in understanding residual risk,” they wrote.
The editorialists suggested that sequential use, rather than regular use, of apoB and non-HDL cholesterol may be best and that incorporating this information may be particularly beneficial for patients with metabolic disorders and elevated triglycerides after statin therapy.
“Maybe this paper is a wake-up call that there are other markers out there that can tell you that you still have higher risk and need to tighten up lifestyle and maybe be more adherent,” Dr. Stone said. “I think this is a wonderful chance to say that preventive cardiology isn’t just ‘set it and forget it’.”
C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, who coauthored the 2018 cholesterol guidelines, agreed there’s “an overexuberant focus on LDL [cholesterol] for residual risk” and highlighted a recent systematic review of statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 cardiovascular outcomes trials that showed very little gain from aggressively driving down LDL below 100 mg/dL, unless the patient is at extremely high risk.
“If I, as a treating cardiologist who spends a lot of time on lipids, had a patient on a high-intensity statin and they didn’t drop [their LDL cholesterol] 50% and I already had them going to cardiac rehab and they were already losing weight, would I measure apoB? Yeah, I might, to motivate them to do more or to take Vascepa,” she said.
“This study is a useful addition to a relatively important problem, which is residual risk, and really supports personalized or precision medicine,” added Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “But now we have to do the work and do an intervention trial in these people and see whether these markers make a difference.”
The study was supported by Herlev and Gentofte Hospital’s Research Fund and the department of clinical biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital. Dr. Nordestgaard has had consultancies or talks sponsored by AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Esperion, Kowa, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics. All other authors, Dr. Stone, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones reported no conflicts. Dr. Merz reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ultraprocessed foods, many marketed as healthy, raise CVD risk
Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.
Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar
“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”
The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”
The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m2, and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.
During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.
In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)
The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.
Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable
The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.
“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.
Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.
Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar
“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”
The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”
The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m2, and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.
During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.
In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)
The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.
Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable
The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.
“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.
Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.
Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar
“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”
The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”
The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m2, and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.
During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.
In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)
The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.
Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable
The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.
“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Abdominal aortic calcification may further raise known fracture risk
A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.
“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.
To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.
Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm2, compared with 0.787 g/cm2; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).
After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.
Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.
After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.
Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).
Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”
“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”
“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”
Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.
A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.
“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.
To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.
Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm2, compared with 0.787 g/cm2; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).
After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.
Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.
After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.
Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).
Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”
“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”
“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”
Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.
A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.
“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.
To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.
Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm2, compared with 0.787 g/cm2; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).
After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.
Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.
After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.
Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).
Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”
“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”
“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”
Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
Dose-related AFib risk with omega-3 fatty acids?
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There may be a dose-related risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib) with omega-3 fatty acid intake, data from four randomized clinical trials suggest.
The latest trial to evaluate the association, the VITAL-RHYTHM study, showed that using a low dose of omega-3 fatty acids or a vitamin D supplement had no significant effect on the risks of developing incident AFib.
The trial, first reported at last year’s American Heart Association meeting, was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Together with three other randomized clinical trials, however, these results suggest a possible dose-related effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk for AFib, an accompanying “Editor’s Note” suggests.
The note, by JAMA deputy editor Gregory Curfman, MD, points out that in the past 2 years, four randomized clinical trials have provided data on the risk of AFib with omega-3 fatty acid intake.
In the STRENGTH and REDUCE-IT trials, both of which evaluated high doses (4 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with heart disease (or at high risk for it), there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk for AFib in the omega-3 groups vs. controls in both trials.
In the OMEMI trial in elderly patients with a recent myocardial infarction, an intermediate dose (1.8 g/day) of omega-3 fatty acids also showed an increase in AFib risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) but this was not significant. And now, the VITAL-RHYTHM trial shows no significant effect of a low dose (840 mg/day) of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of developing AFib in a primary prevention population.
“Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF [AFib] and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia,” Dr. Curfman concludes.
The authors of the VITAL-RHYTHM trial, led by Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif., explain that the trial was conducted after observational studies had shown that individuals with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and vitamin D3 have higher risks of incident AFib, but data on dietary or supplemental intake of these nutrients on AFib risk were mixed.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to prospectively test the effect of any intervention on incident AF and is the only trial to test alternative upstream preventive agents for AF in a large enough population over a long enough time period to provide an assessment of the plausible benefits and risks,” they write.
The VITAL-RHYTHM study was an ancillary trial embedded within the Vitamin D and Omega-3 (VITAL) trial, which used a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate daily supplementation with 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and/or 840 mg of marine omega-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA and 380 mg DHA), in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 25,871 men and women age 50 and older in the United States.
Results showed that over a median 5.3 years of treatment and follow-up, the primary endpoint of incident AFib occurred in 3.6% of the study population. For the omega-3 part of the trial, incident AFib events occurred in 3.7% of patients taking EPA/DHA vs. 3.4% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was not significant (P = .19).
For the vitamin D3 vs. placebo comparison, results were very similar, with incident AFib events occurring in 3.7% vs. 3.4% of participants, respectively, giving a hazard ratio of 1.09, which was again not significant (P = .19). There was no evidence for interaction between the two study agents.
“Overall, these findings do not support the use of supplemental EPA-DHA or vitamin D3 for the primary prevention of AFib and provide reassurance regarding lack of a major risk of AFib incidence associated with these commonly used supplements at these doses,” the authors conclude.
Noting that significant increases in AFib have been seen with much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials, they add: “Potentially, the adverse effect on AF risk may be dose related, and the higher dosages of EPA used in these other studies might account for the significant adverse effect on AF.”
The researchers say that, to their knowledge, this is the only randomized trial to assess the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on AFib risk and results suggest a null effect. They add that subgroup analyses in patients with vitamin D levels considered deficient (<20 ng/mL) did not suggest a benefit; however, the power to detect a benefit in this much smaller subset of the population was limited.
They point out that, while there were no significant differences in incident AFib for either omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D in the overall study population, an increased risk for incident AFib associated with randomized treatment was observed in selected subgroups.
For omega-3 fatty acids, AFib risk was modestly increased in taller individuals, and for vitamin D3, elevations in AFib risk were observed in younger individuals and participants who drank less alcohol.
“Although the hazard ratios and tests for interaction were significant, the P values associated with these subgroup analyses have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered hypothesis generating,” they warn.
The VITAL Rhythm Study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Albert reported receipt of grants from St Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Curfman reports no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.