Cardiology

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s Symplicity Spyral renal denervation system for the treatment of hypertension, the company has announced.

The Symplicity Spyral system, also known as the Symplicity blood pressure procedure, provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy.

Back in August, the FDA’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral system is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

As part of the Medtronic SPYRAL HTN Global Clinical Program, more than 25,000 patients have been treated worldwide, both in the presence and absence of medication, and in patients with high baseline cardiovascular risk.

The SPYRAL HTN-OFF study enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be stopped at the start of the trial.

The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months after renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device, compared with sham-control patients.

The SPYRAL HTN-ON study evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their BP medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03 mm Hg reduction in ASBP in active-treatment patients, compared with sham-control patients.

“The Symplicity blood pressure procedure is safe and effective, providing significant ‘always-on’ blood pressure reductions for patients,” David Kandzari, MD, chief, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, and co–principal investigator of the SPYRAL clinical program, said in the news release.

“This approval paves the way for a transformation in hypertension treatment, offering a solution that complements medication and lifestyle changes,” added co–principal investigator Raymond Townsend, MD, with University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Medtronic notes that patient preference and shared decision-making are key components when considering the Symplicity blood pressure procedure.

In a patient preference study led by Medtronic, when presented with an interventional treatment with BP reduction and potential risks in line with those of the Symplicity blood pressure procedure, approximately one-third of patients were likely to choose the interventional treatment.

Earlier in November, the FDA also approved the Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation system (Recor Medical, Otsuka Medical Devices) for the treatment of hypertension.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s Symplicity Spyral renal denervation system for the treatment of hypertension, the company has announced.

The Symplicity Spyral system, also known as the Symplicity blood pressure procedure, provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy.

Back in August, the FDA’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral system is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

As part of the Medtronic SPYRAL HTN Global Clinical Program, more than 25,000 patients have been treated worldwide, both in the presence and absence of medication, and in patients with high baseline cardiovascular risk.

The SPYRAL HTN-OFF study enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be stopped at the start of the trial.

The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months after renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device, compared with sham-control patients.

The SPYRAL HTN-ON study evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their BP medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03 mm Hg reduction in ASBP in active-treatment patients, compared with sham-control patients.

“The Symplicity blood pressure procedure is safe and effective, providing significant ‘always-on’ blood pressure reductions for patients,” David Kandzari, MD, chief, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, and co–principal investigator of the SPYRAL clinical program, said in the news release.

“This approval paves the way for a transformation in hypertension treatment, offering a solution that complements medication and lifestyle changes,” added co–principal investigator Raymond Townsend, MD, with University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Medtronic notes that patient preference and shared decision-making are key components when considering the Symplicity blood pressure procedure.

In a patient preference study led by Medtronic, when presented with an interventional treatment with BP reduction and potential risks in line with those of the Symplicity blood pressure procedure, approximately one-third of patients were likely to choose the interventional treatment.

Earlier in November, the FDA also approved the Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation system (Recor Medical, Otsuka Medical Devices) for the treatment of hypertension.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s Symplicity Spyral renal denervation system for the treatment of hypertension, the company has announced.

The Symplicity Spyral system, also known as the Symplicity blood pressure procedure, provides a catheter-based approach to denervate the renal arteries using radiofrequency energy.

Back in August, the FDA’s Circulatory System Devices Panel unanimously agreed that the Symplicity Spyral system is safe, but the panel was split on its efficacy and whether the benefits outweighed the risks associated with its use.

As part of the Medtronic SPYRAL HTN Global Clinical Program, more than 25,000 patients have been treated worldwide, both in the presence and absence of medication, and in patients with high baseline cardiovascular risk.

The SPYRAL HTN-OFF study enrolled patients with hypertension whose medications could be stopped at the start of the trial.

The primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) from baseline to 3 months after renal denervation or sham procedure. The study showed a statistically significant reduction of 3.9 mm Hg ASBP in patients who received the device, compared with sham-control patients.

The SPYRAL HTN-ON study evaluated patients with uncontrolled hypertension who continued taking their BP medications during treatment with either the Spyral renal denervation device or a sham device.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the baseline adjusted 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 6 months. The study showed a nonsignificant 24-hour 0.03 mm Hg reduction in ASBP in active-treatment patients, compared with sham-control patients.

“The Symplicity blood pressure procedure is safe and effective, providing significant ‘always-on’ blood pressure reductions for patients,” David Kandzari, MD, chief, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, and co–principal investigator of the SPYRAL clinical program, said in the news release.

“This approval paves the way for a transformation in hypertension treatment, offering a solution that complements medication and lifestyle changes,” added co–principal investigator Raymond Townsend, MD, with University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Medtronic notes that patient preference and shared decision-making are key components when considering the Symplicity blood pressure procedure.

In a patient preference study led by Medtronic, when presented with an interventional treatment with BP reduction and potential risks in line with those of the Symplicity blood pressure procedure, approximately one-third of patients were likely to choose the interventional treatment.

Earlier in November, the FDA also approved the Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation system (Recor Medical, Otsuka Medical Devices) for the treatment of hypertension.

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

A single injection of the investigational antihypertensive agent zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals) effectively lowered blood pressure in adults with mild to moderate hypertension for up to 6 months, with what appeared to be an encouraging side-effect profile, in the phase 2 dose-ranging KARDIA-1 study.

“Our study demonstrates that either quarterly or biannual doses of zilebesiran can effectively and safely lower blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension,” said senior study investigator George Bakris, MD.

“Based on these results, zilebesiran has the potential to improve medication adherence, which will, in turn, reduce cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension,” added Dr. Bakris, who is professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago Medicine.

The KARDIA-1 study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Bakris noted that uncontrolled hypertension is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite availability of effective antihypertensives, many adults with hypertension are untreated, and up to 80% have uncontrolled disease, both globally and in the United States.

Zilebesiran is a subcutaneous RNA interference therapeutic that binds with high affinity to the hepatic asialoglycoprotein receptor, bringing about a reduction in the synthesis of angiotensinogen, the sole precursor of all angiotensin peptides. It is hoped that its hepatocyte-targeted delivery may allow extrahepatic angiotensinogen expression to be preserved, which could limit off-target effects in the kidney and other tissues.

The KARDIA-1 trial investigated the safety and efficacy of different doses of zilebesiran in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (systolic BP of 135-160 mm Hg), who are untreated or on stable therapy with up to two antihypertensive medications.

The study included 394 such patients (average baseline systolic BP was 142 mm Hg) who were randomly assigned to receive one of four different zilebesiran doses (150 mg, 300 mg, or 600 mg once every 6 months or 300 mg once every 2 months) or a placebo. The final analysis included 377 patients (56% men, 25% Black).

Results showed sustained reductions in serum angiotensinogen (between 88% and 98%) over the 6-month follow-up period.

Ambulatory systolic BP measured over 24 hours was significantly decreased with all zilebesiran regimens, with a mean reduction from baseline to month 6 of around 10 mm Hg in the three top doses studied and by around 14 mm Hg compared with placebo.

Patients receiving zilebesiran were more likely to achieve 24-hour average systolic BP measurements of 130 mm Hg or less at 6 months.

In addition, participants in all four zilebesiran groups consistently experienced significantly greater reductions in both daytime and nighttime systolic BP.

There were four nonserious adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the zilebesiran groups: two instances of orthostatic hypotension, one of BP elevation, and one of injection site reaction.

Most hyperkalemia adverse events, which occurred in 6% of patients, were mild, did not require intervention, and generally resolved with repeat measurement; none were associated with acute kidney injury or led to study drug discontinuation. The incidence of hypotension events was low, and no clinically relevant changes in renal or hepatic function were observed, Dr. Bakris reported.

There was one death caused by cardiopulmonary arrest in a patient receiving zilebesiran 300 mg every 3 months, but this was not classified as drug related.

Zilebesiran is being further evaluated as an add-on therapy for treatment of hypertension in the ongoing KARDIA-2 phase 2 study.

Moderator of an AHA press conference at which the study was discussed, Sandra Taler, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that “to have an injectable medicine that gives long-term blood pressure lowering is extremely exciting.”

Dr. Taler raised the point that some patients may not return for subsequent doses, but added that with subcutaneous dosing, administration at home may be a possibility.

Also commenting at the press conference, Keith Ferdinand, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that this study “suggests we can now target the first step in the renin-angiotensin system – angiotensinogen – which then appears to lead to robust and continued blood pressure lowering for up to 6 months, which should improve adherence.”

Noting that only 50% of patients continue to take antihypertensive drugs after 1 year, Dr. Ferdinand added: “If we can increase adherence, we will increase efficacy and perhaps protect against some of the target organ damage.”

Designated discussant of the KARDIA-1 study at the AHA late-breaking clinical trial session, Anna Dominiczak, MD, University of Glasgow, noted that hypertension affects one in three adults worldwide, but only around 20% of people have it under control.

“An increase in the number of patients effectively treated for hypertension to levels observed in high-performing countries could prevent 76 million deaths, 120 million strokes, 79 million heart attacks, and 17 million cases of heart failure between now and 2050,” she said.

Dr. Bakris has received consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

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

A single injection of the investigational antihypertensive agent zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals) effectively lowered blood pressure in adults with mild to moderate hypertension for up to 6 months, with what appeared to be an encouraging side-effect profile, in the phase 2 dose-ranging KARDIA-1 study.

“Our study demonstrates that either quarterly or biannual doses of zilebesiran can effectively and safely lower blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension,” said senior study investigator George Bakris, MD.

“Based on these results, zilebesiran has the potential to improve medication adherence, which will, in turn, reduce cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension,” added Dr. Bakris, who is professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago Medicine.

The KARDIA-1 study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Bakris noted that uncontrolled hypertension is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite availability of effective antihypertensives, many adults with hypertension are untreated, and up to 80% have uncontrolled disease, both globally and in the United States.

Zilebesiran is a subcutaneous RNA interference therapeutic that binds with high affinity to the hepatic asialoglycoprotein receptor, bringing about a reduction in the synthesis of angiotensinogen, the sole precursor of all angiotensin peptides. It is hoped that its hepatocyte-targeted delivery may allow extrahepatic angiotensinogen expression to be preserved, which could limit off-target effects in the kidney and other tissues.

The KARDIA-1 trial investigated the safety and efficacy of different doses of zilebesiran in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (systolic BP of 135-160 mm Hg), who are untreated or on stable therapy with up to two antihypertensive medications.

The study included 394 such patients (average baseline systolic BP was 142 mm Hg) who were randomly assigned to receive one of four different zilebesiran doses (150 mg, 300 mg, or 600 mg once every 6 months or 300 mg once every 2 months) or a placebo. The final analysis included 377 patients (56% men, 25% Black).

Results showed sustained reductions in serum angiotensinogen (between 88% and 98%) over the 6-month follow-up period.

Ambulatory systolic BP measured over 24 hours was significantly decreased with all zilebesiran regimens, with a mean reduction from baseline to month 6 of around 10 mm Hg in the three top doses studied and by around 14 mm Hg compared with placebo.

Patients receiving zilebesiran were more likely to achieve 24-hour average systolic BP measurements of 130 mm Hg or less at 6 months.

In addition, participants in all four zilebesiran groups consistently experienced significantly greater reductions in both daytime and nighttime systolic BP.

There were four nonserious adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the zilebesiran groups: two instances of orthostatic hypotension, one of BP elevation, and one of injection site reaction.

Most hyperkalemia adverse events, which occurred in 6% of patients, were mild, did not require intervention, and generally resolved with repeat measurement; none were associated with acute kidney injury or led to study drug discontinuation. The incidence of hypotension events was low, and no clinically relevant changes in renal or hepatic function were observed, Dr. Bakris reported.

There was one death caused by cardiopulmonary arrest in a patient receiving zilebesiran 300 mg every 3 months, but this was not classified as drug related.

Zilebesiran is being further evaluated as an add-on therapy for treatment of hypertension in the ongoing KARDIA-2 phase 2 study.

Moderator of an AHA press conference at which the study was discussed, Sandra Taler, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that “to have an injectable medicine that gives long-term blood pressure lowering is extremely exciting.”

Dr. Taler raised the point that some patients may not return for subsequent doses, but added that with subcutaneous dosing, administration at home may be a possibility.

Also commenting at the press conference, Keith Ferdinand, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that this study “suggests we can now target the first step in the renin-angiotensin system – angiotensinogen – which then appears to lead to robust and continued blood pressure lowering for up to 6 months, which should improve adherence.”

Noting that only 50% of patients continue to take antihypertensive drugs after 1 year, Dr. Ferdinand added: “If we can increase adherence, we will increase efficacy and perhaps protect against some of the target organ damage.”

Designated discussant of the KARDIA-1 study at the AHA late-breaking clinical trial session, Anna Dominiczak, MD, University of Glasgow, noted that hypertension affects one in three adults worldwide, but only around 20% of people have it under control.

“An increase in the number of patients effectively treated for hypertension to levels observed in high-performing countries could prevent 76 million deaths, 120 million strokes, 79 million heart attacks, and 17 million cases of heart failure between now and 2050,” she said.

Dr. Bakris has received consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

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

A single injection of the investigational antihypertensive agent zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals) effectively lowered blood pressure in adults with mild to moderate hypertension for up to 6 months, with what appeared to be an encouraging side-effect profile, in the phase 2 dose-ranging KARDIA-1 study.

“Our study demonstrates that either quarterly or biannual doses of zilebesiran can effectively and safely lower blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension,” said senior study investigator George Bakris, MD.

“Based on these results, zilebesiran has the potential to improve medication adherence, which will, in turn, reduce cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension,” added Dr. Bakris, who is professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago Medicine.

The KARDIA-1 study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Bakris noted that uncontrolled hypertension is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite availability of effective antihypertensives, many adults with hypertension are untreated, and up to 80% have uncontrolled disease, both globally and in the United States.

Zilebesiran is a subcutaneous RNA interference therapeutic that binds with high affinity to the hepatic asialoglycoprotein receptor, bringing about a reduction in the synthesis of angiotensinogen, the sole precursor of all angiotensin peptides. It is hoped that its hepatocyte-targeted delivery may allow extrahepatic angiotensinogen expression to be preserved, which could limit off-target effects in the kidney and other tissues.

The KARDIA-1 trial investigated the safety and efficacy of different doses of zilebesiran in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (systolic BP of 135-160 mm Hg), who are untreated or on stable therapy with up to two antihypertensive medications.

The study included 394 such patients (average baseline systolic BP was 142 mm Hg) who were randomly assigned to receive one of four different zilebesiran doses (150 mg, 300 mg, or 600 mg once every 6 months or 300 mg once every 2 months) or a placebo. The final analysis included 377 patients (56% men, 25% Black).

Results showed sustained reductions in serum angiotensinogen (between 88% and 98%) over the 6-month follow-up period.

Ambulatory systolic BP measured over 24 hours was significantly decreased with all zilebesiran regimens, with a mean reduction from baseline to month 6 of around 10 mm Hg in the three top doses studied and by around 14 mm Hg compared with placebo.

Patients receiving zilebesiran were more likely to achieve 24-hour average systolic BP measurements of 130 mm Hg or less at 6 months.

In addition, participants in all four zilebesiran groups consistently experienced significantly greater reductions in both daytime and nighttime systolic BP.

There were four nonserious adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the zilebesiran groups: two instances of orthostatic hypotension, one of BP elevation, and one of injection site reaction.

Most hyperkalemia adverse events, which occurred in 6% of patients, were mild, did not require intervention, and generally resolved with repeat measurement; none were associated with acute kidney injury or led to study drug discontinuation. The incidence of hypotension events was low, and no clinically relevant changes in renal or hepatic function were observed, Dr. Bakris reported.

There was one death caused by cardiopulmonary arrest in a patient receiving zilebesiran 300 mg every 3 months, but this was not classified as drug related.

Zilebesiran is being further evaluated as an add-on therapy for treatment of hypertension in the ongoing KARDIA-2 phase 2 study.

Moderator of an AHA press conference at which the study was discussed, Sandra Taler, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that “to have an injectable medicine that gives long-term blood pressure lowering is extremely exciting.”

Dr. Taler raised the point that some patients may not return for subsequent doses, but added that with subcutaneous dosing, administration at home may be a possibility.

Also commenting at the press conference, Keith Ferdinand, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that this study “suggests we can now target the first step in the renin-angiotensin system – angiotensinogen – which then appears to lead to robust and continued blood pressure lowering for up to 6 months, which should improve adherence.”

Noting that only 50% of patients continue to take antihypertensive drugs after 1 year, Dr. Ferdinand added: “If we can increase adherence, we will increase efficacy and perhaps protect against some of the target organ damage.”

Designated discussant of the KARDIA-1 study at the AHA late-breaking clinical trial session, Anna Dominiczak, MD, University of Glasgow, noted that hypertension affects one in three adults worldwide, but only around 20% of people have it under control.

“An increase in the number of patients effectively treated for hypertension to levels observed in high-performing countries could prevent 76 million deaths, 120 million strokes, 79 million heart attacks, and 17 million cases of heart failure between now and 2050,” she said.

Dr. Bakris has received consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has unveiled a new heart disease risk calculator that aims to estimate an individual’s long-term risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.

It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.

PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.

“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.

The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool. 

Going beyond the PCE

The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.

In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.

It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.

The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.

“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.

They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.

The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.

The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.

“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
 

Knowledge gaps

The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:

• Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
• Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
• Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
• Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
• Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has unveiled a new heart disease risk calculator that aims to estimate an individual’s long-term risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.

It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.

PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.

“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.

The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool. 

Going beyond the PCE

The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.

In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.

It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.

The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.

“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.

They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.

The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.

The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.

“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
 

Knowledge gaps

The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:

• Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
• Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
• Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
• Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
• Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has unveiled a new heart disease risk calculator that aims to estimate an individual’s long-term risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.

It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.

PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.

“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.

The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool. 

Going beyond the PCE

The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.

In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.

It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.

The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.

“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.

They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.

The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.

The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.

“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
 

Knowledge gaps

The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:

• Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
• Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
• Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
• Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
• Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier this year, I stumbled across a podcast in a content update email from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The moderator was interviewing the first author of a study comparing hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone (hydro/fludro) to hydrocortisone alone for treatment of septic shock. In the introduction, the author commented on the discordance in practice among his peers at his hospital. It seemed that there was no consensus on whether fludrocortisone was necessary.

I thought this issue had been settled with publication of the COIITSS trial in 2010. This study randomly assigned 509 patients with septic shock to hydro/fludro versus hydrocortisone alone. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with hydro/fludro and everyone I knew stopped adding fludrocortisone for septic shock. It wasn’t included in guidelines (and still isn›t). I figured the only docs still using it were also prescribing ivermectin and vitamin C – another treatment touted to work in an apocryphal podcast.

It wasn’t just COIITSS that killed fludrocortisone for me. Back in 2002, I was a loyal adherent. That year, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published by “the lord of corticosteroids for critical illness” doctor, Djillali Annane, found benefit to hydro/fludro in septic shock . Everyone in that study had a cosyntropin stim test and only certain subgroups had better outcomes. As a medical resident paying obeisance to all things evidence-based medicine, I rigidly adopted their protocol for all septic patients. I also kept their insulin between 80 and 110 mg/dL, prescribed drotrecogin alfa, and made sure they were floating in crystalloid. But those are topics for another time.

Subsequent trials and meta-analyses cast doubt on the need for the stim test, and a consensus around hydrocortisone at moderate doses for patients with septic shock emerged. Because one part of the Annane protocol was already deemed unnecessary (the cosyntropin stim test), it was easy to dismiss fludrocortisone after COIITTS was published. Yes, I read Annane’s 2018 APROCCHSS trial, and I’m aware that it found that hydro/fludro reduced 90-day mortality. Like others, I rationalized this finding by framing it as a function of baseline mortality. The two Annane RCTs that found that hydro/fludro reduced mortality in enrolled patients who were considerably more likely to die than those enrolled in RCTs of hydrocortisone alone were negative. It was the target population mortality rate and not the addition of fludrocortisone that made the difference, right?
 

Rethinking hydro/fludro

The author interviewed for the recent JAMA podcast forced me to rethink my blithe dismissal of fludrocortisone. He contended that the COIITTS trial was underpowered and the two Annane RCTs that used fludrocortisone supply the evidence that shows corticosteroids reduce septic shock mortality. As discussed earlier, he found clinical equipoise among his colleagues. Last, he invoked pleiotropic mineralocorticoid effects, such as activation of innate immunity and clearance of alveolar fluid, to support the need to reexamine hydro/fludro.

In his study, he used Big Data to compare hospital records from 2016 to 2020. He analyzed a total of 88,275 patients with septic shock. Most were prescribed hydrocortisone alone (85,995 [97.4%] vs. only 2.6% hydro/fludro). After a number of statistical adjustments and sensitivity analyses, the authors concluded that the addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock provides a 3.7% absolute risk reduction in mortality (or discharge to hospice) when compared with hydrocortisone alone. That’s a number needed to treat of 28 to prevent one death (or discharge to hospice).
 

Key takeaways

The study isn’t perfect. In their methods section they use terms like “ensemble machine learner (super learner)” and “immortal time bias.” The first is a fancy way of saying they did a form of propensity scoring, which in turn is a fancy way of saying they tried to control for confounding. The second is a way to adjust for time delays between drug administration. Both are attempts to compensate for the observational design, as is their argument for biologic plausibility. Here they’re on particularly thin ice when trying to prove causal inference. Biologic plausibility is never hard to find; after all, what compound doesn’t have pleiotropic effects? Furthermore, the analysis lacks any data to support their biologic plausibility hypothesis that fludrocortisone’s effect on mortality is mediated via activation of innate immunity and/or clearance of alveolar fluid.

The editorial accompanying this Big Data study endorsed adding fludrocortisone. We have very little that reduces ICU mortality so the low number needed to treat is enticing, especially in light of the low risk from adverse events, so I’m going to start using it. Do I think I’ll save one life for every 28 patients with septic shock to whom I give hydro/fludro instead of hydrocortisone alone? I sure don’t. No way an oral mineralocorticoid at that dose has that type of impact on top of hydrocortisone alone. I still believe that the Annane studies are positive because of the mortality rate in the population enrolled and not because fludrocortisone was added. It all comes full circle, though – 20 years after I abandoned hydro/fludro, I’m going back to it.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/critical care and sleep medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.

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

Earlier this year, I stumbled across a podcast in a content update email from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The moderator was interviewing the first author of a study comparing hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone (hydro/fludro) to hydrocortisone alone for treatment of septic shock. In the introduction, the author commented on the discordance in practice among his peers at his hospital. It seemed that there was no consensus on whether fludrocortisone was necessary.

I thought this issue had been settled with publication of the COIITSS trial in 2010. This study randomly assigned 509 patients with septic shock to hydro/fludro versus hydrocortisone alone. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with hydro/fludro and everyone I knew stopped adding fludrocortisone for septic shock. It wasn’t included in guidelines (and still isn›t). I figured the only docs still using it were also prescribing ivermectin and vitamin C – another treatment touted to work in an apocryphal podcast.

It wasn’t just COIITSS that killed fludrocortisone for me. Back in 2002, I was a loyal adherent. That year, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published by “the lord of corticosteroids for critical illness” doctor, Djillali Annane, found benefit to hydro/fludro in septic shock . Everyone in that study had a cosyntropin stim test and only certain subgroups had better outcomes. As a medical resident paying obeisance to all things evidence-based medicine, I rigidly adopted their protocol for all septic patients. I also kept their insulin between 80 and 110 mg/dL, prescribed drotrecogin alfa, and made sure they were floating in crystalloid. But those are topics for another time.

Subsequent trials and meta-analyses cast doubt on the need for the stim test, and a consensus around hydrocortisone at moderate doses for patients with septic shock emerged. Because one part of the Annane protocol was already deemed unnecessary (the cosyntropin stim test), it was easy to dismiss fludrocortisone after COIITTS was published. Yes, I read Annane’s 2018 APROCCHSS trial, and I’m aware that it found that hydro/fludro reduced 90-day mortality. Like others, I rationalized this finding by framing it as a function of baseline mortality. The two Annane RCTs that found that hydro/fludro reduced mortality in enrolled patients who were considerably more likely to die than those enrolled in RCTs of hydrocortisone alone were negative. It was the target population mortality rate and not the addition of fludrocortisone that made the difference, right?
 

Rethinking hydro/fludro

The author interviewed for the recent JAMA podcast forced me to rethink my blithe dismissal of fludrocortisone. He contended that the COIITTS trial was underpowered and the two Annane RCTs that used fludrocortisone supply the evidence that shows corticosteroids reduce septic shock mortality. As discussed earlier, he found clinical equipoise among his colleagues. Last, he invoked pleiotropic mineralocorticoid effects, such as activation of innate immunity and clearance of alveolar fluid, to support the need to reexamine hydro/fludro.

In his study, he used Big Data to compare hospital records from 2016 to 2020. He analyzed a total of 88,275 patients with septic shock. Most were prescribed hydrocortisone alone (85,995 [97.4%] vs. only 2.6% hydro/fludro). After a number of statistical adjustments and sensitivity analyses, the authors concluded that the addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock provides a 3.7% absolute risk reduction in mortality (or discharge to hospice) when compared with hydrocortisone alone. That’s a number needed to treat of 28 to prevent one death (or discharge to hospice).
 

Key takeaways

The study isn’t perfect. In their methods section they use terms like “ensemble machine learner (super learner)” and “immortal time bias.” The first is a fancy way of saying they did a form of propensity scoring, which in turn is a fancy way of saying they tried to control for confounding. The second is a way to adjust for time delays between drug administration. Both are attempts to compensate for the observational design, as is their argument for biologic plausibility. Here they’re on particularly thin ice when trying to prove causal inference. Biologic plausibility is never hard to find; after all, what compound doesn’t have pleiotropic effects? Furthermore, the analysis lacks any data to support their biologic plausibility hypothesis that fludrocortisone’s effect on mortality is mediated via activation of innate immunity and/or clearance of alveolar fluid.

The editorial accompanying this Big Data study endorsed adding fludrocortisone. We have very little that reduces ICU mortality so the low number needed to treat is enticing, especially in light of the low risk from adverse events, so I’m going to start using it. Do I think I’ll save one life for every 28 patients with septic shock to whom I give hydro/fludro instead of hydrocortisone alone? I sure don’t. No way an oral mineralocorticoid at that dose has that type of impact on top of hydrocortisone alone. I still believe that the Annane studies are positive because of the mortality rate in the population enrolled and not because fludrocortisone was added. It all comes full circle, though – 20 years after I abandoned hydro/fludro, I’m going back to it.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/critical care and sleep medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.

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

Earlier this year, I stumbled across a podcast in a content update email from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The moderator was interviewing the first author of a study comparing hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone (hydro/fludro) to hydrocortisone alone for treatment of septic shock. In the introduction, the author commented on the discordance in practice among his peers at his hospital. It seemed that there was no consensus on whether fludrocortisone was necessary.

I thought this issue had been settled with publication of the COIITSS trial in 2010. This study randomly assigned 509 patients with septic shock to hydro/fludro versus hydrocortisone alone. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with hydro/fludro and everyone I knew stopped adding fludrocortisone for septic shock. It wasn’t included in guidelines (and still isn›t). I figured the only docs still using it were also prescribing ivermectin and vitamin C – another treatment touted to work in an apocryphal podcast.

It wasn’t just COIITSS that killed fludrocortisone for me. Back in 2002, I was a loyal adherent. That year, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published by “the lord of corticosteroids for critical illness” doctor, Djillali Annane, found benefit to hydro/fludro in septic shock . Everyone in that study had a cosyntropin stim test and only certain subgroups had better outcomes. As a medical resident paying obeisance to all things evidence-based medicine, I rigidly adopted their protocol for all septic patients. I also kept their insulin between 80 and 110 mg/dL, prescribed drotrecogin alfa, and made sure they were floating in crystalloid. But those are topics for another time.

Subsequent trials and meta-analyses cast doubt on the need for the stim test, and a consensus around hydrocortisone at moderate doses for patients with septic shock emerged. Because one part of the Annane protocol was already deemed unnecessary (the cosyntropin stim test), it was easy to dismiss fludrocortisone after COIITTS was published. Yes, I read Annane’s 2018 APROCCHSS trial, and I’m aware that it found that hydro/fludro reduced 90-day mortality. Like others, I rationalized this finding by framing it as a function of baseline mortality. The two Annane RCTs that found that hydro/fludro reduced mortality in enrolled patients who were considerably more likely to die than those enrolled in RCTs of hydrocortisone alone were negative. It was the target population mortality rate and not the addition of fludrocortisone that made the difference, right?
 

Rethinking hydro/fludro

The author interviewed for the recent JAMA podcast forced me to rethink my blithe dismissal of fludrocortisone. He contended that the COIITTS trial was underpowered and the two Annane RCTs that used fludrocortisone supply the evidence that shows corticosteroids reduce septic shock mortality. As discussed earlier, he found clinical equipoise among his colleagues. Last, he invoked pleiotropic mineralocorticoid effects, such as activation of innate immunity and clearance of alveolar fluid, to support the need to reexamine hydro/fludro.

In his study, he used Big Data to compare hospital records from 2016 to 2020. He analyzed a total of 88,275 patients with septic shock. Most were prescribed hydrocortisone alone (85,995 [97.4%] vs. only 2.6% hydro/fludro). After a number of statistical adjustments and sensitivity analyses, the authors concluded that the addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock provides a 3.7% absolute risk reduction in mortality (or discharge to hospice) when compared with hydrocortisone alone. That’s a number needed to treat of 28 to prevent one death (or discharge to hospice).
 

Key takeaways

The study isn’t perfect. In their methods section they use terms like “ensemble machine learner (super learner)” and “immortal time bias.” The first is a fancy way of saying they did a form of propensity scoring, which in turn is a fancy way of saying they tried to control for confounding. The second is a way to adjust for time delays between drug administration. Both are attempts to compensate for the observational design, as is their argument for biologic plausibility. Here they’re on particularly thin ice when trying to prove causal inference. Biologic plausibility is never hard to find; after all, what compound doesn’t have pleiotropic effects? Furthermore, the analysis lacks any data to support their biologic plausibility hypothesis that fludrocortisone’s effect on mortality is mediated via activation of innate immunity and/or clearance of alveolar fluid.

The editorial accompanying this Big Data study endorsed adding fludrocortisone. We have very little that reduces ICU mortality so the low number needed to treat is enticing, especially in light of the low risk from adverse events, so I’m going to start using it. Do I think I’ll save one life for every 28 patients with septic shock to whom I give hydro/fludro instead of hydrocortisone alone? I sure don’t. No way an oral mineralocorticoid at that dose has that type of impact on top of hydrocortisone alone. I still believe that the Annane studies are positive because of the mortality rate in the population enrolled and not because fludrocortisone was added. It all comes full circle, though – 20 years after I abandoned hydro/fludro, I’m going back to it.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/critical care and sleep medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.

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

My Bing AI engine, when prompted, tells me that there are about 87 journals, 45 conferences, and 53 workshops presently dedicated exclusively to hypertension. All of that attention, and yet ...

What is going on?

The top killers of Americans remain coronary artery heart disease (26%), cancer (22%), and stroke (6%). The precursors and attributable risk factors for coronary artery heart disease include hypertension (40%), obesity (20%), diabetes (15%), and combustible tobacco use (15%). The key precursors and attributable risk factors for stroke are hypertension (53%), obesity (37%), diabetes (9%), and combustible tobacco use (11%). Obviously, these are estimates, with substantial overlap.

It’s pretty obvious that if the population and the health care systems of the United States were seriously interested in saving lives, they would strive diligently to control blood pressure, prevent obesity and diabetes, and eliminate combustible tobacco use.

We have addressed improving tobacco control and preventing obesity and diabetes on these pages many times, and lamented the medical, public health, and societal failings. Today we turn our attention to the control of hypertension. That is much easier and far less expensive.

All physicians and medical organizations know that hypertension is a major attributable cause of many serious, expensive, and fatal illnesses. As many as 119 million (48%) of American adults have hypertension. The American Heart Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and hundreds of other organizations have set a new target of 130/80 (revised from 140/90) for blood pressure control and have launched a major initiative, Target: BP, to reach it.

That is just great. We all wish this massive effort to succeed where few others have. But do AHA, AMA, ACC, and others understand why most efforts to this point have failed? The blame is typically aimed at patients failing to adhere to their instructions. Maybe, but why? And how does Target: BP intend to convert chronic failure into success if it just continues to do everything they have been trying to do that doesn’t work?

At this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fewer than 48% of American patients with hypertension meet even the less stringent historical 140/90 goal.

A group practice in Ohio, PriMed Physicians, has consistently exceeded 90% or even 95% blood pressure control for its patients with hypertension for more than 10 years. Exemplary. How do they do it? This video of the 13th annual Lundberg Institute lecture describes this unique and successful program.

PriMed’s clinicians use the MedsEngine AI tool from MediSync and the NICaS (noninvasive cardiac system with impedance cardiography) to determine each patient’s unique blood pressure pathophysiology. Clinicians and patients understand that the simplest explanation of this pathophysiology encompasses three factors: (1) the volume of “water” (blood) in the system; (2) the strength of the pumping (pulsatile) process; and (3) the tightness (resistance) of the tubes that carry the blood. Patients “get it” when it is explained this way, and they cooperate.

At the first patient encounter, the Food and Drug Administration–approved PhysioFlow is employed to assess those three vital hemodynamic factors. The individual patient’s data are loaded into a tightly programed EHR-based algorithm with 37 clinical factors and five classes of drugs, providing multiple ways to influence the three key pathophysiologic processes. In this way, they arrive at the precise drug(s) and dosages for that patient. During the second visit, most patients are already showing improvement. By the third visit, the blood pressures of most patients have reached target control. After that, it is maintenance and tweaking.

These factors summarize why it works:

• Senior management belief, commitment, and leadership
• Informed buy-in from clinicians and patients
• A test that determines root causes of too much fluid, too strong pump action, or too tight pipes, and their proportionality
• An AI tool that matches those three pathophysiologic factors and 35 other clinical factors with the best drug or drugs (of many, not just a few) and dosages
• Persistent clinician-patient follow-up
• Refusal to accept failure

Since this approach is so successful, why is its use not everywhere?

It is not as if nobody noticed, even if you and many organizations have not. The American Medical Group Association recognized the program’s success by giving its top award to PriMed in 2015.

Klepper and Rodis wrote about this approach for managing multiple chronic conditions in 2021. Here’s a background article and an explainer, Clinical use of impedance cardiography for hemodynamic assessment of early cardiovascular disease and management of hypertension.

I found one pragmatic controlled clinical trial of impedance cardiography with a decision-support system from Beijing that did demonstrate clinical and statistical significance.

Frankly, we do need more rigorous, unbiased, large, controlled clinical trials assessing the MedsEngine and NICaS approach to managing blood pressure to facilitate a massive switch from the old and established (but failing) approach to a starkly better way.

Almost no one ever “completes a database.” All decision makers must act based upon the best data to which they have access. Data are often incomplete. The difference between success and mediocrity is often the ability of an individual or system to decide when enough information is enough and act accordingly.

Cost-effectiveness studies in three countries (United Kingdom, United States, and China) confirm sharply lower lifelong costs when blood pressure is well controlled. Of course.

For the American medical-industrial complex, lowered costs for managing common serious diseases may be an undesired rather than a good thing. In money-driven medicine, lower costs to the payer and purchaser translate to less revenue for the providers. Imagine all of those invasive and noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures forgone by prevention of hypertension. Is it possible that such an underlying truth is the real reason why American medicine is habitually unsuccessful at controlling blood pressure?

Right now, if my blood pressure were not well controlled (it is), I would find my way to Cincinnati, to give PriMed physicians, MediSync, and MedsEngine a crack at prolonging my useful life.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My Bing AI engine, when prompted, tells me that there are about 87 journals, 45 conferences, and 53 workshops presently dedicated exclusively to hypertension. All of that attention, and yet ...

What is going on?

The top killers of Americans remain coronary artery heart disease (26%), cancer (22%), and stroke (6%). The precursors and attributable risk factors for coronary artery heart disease include hypertension (40%), obesity (20%), diabetes (15%), and combustible tobacco use (15%). The key precursors and attributable risk factors for stroke are hypertension (53%), obesity (37%), diabetes (9%), and combustible tobacco use (11%). Obviously, these are estimates, with substantial overlap.

It’s pretty obvious that if the population and the health care systems of the United States were seriously interested in saving lives, they would strive diligently to control blood pressure, prevent obesity and diabetes, and eliminate combustible tobacco use.

We have addressed improving tobacco control and preventing obesity and diabetes on these pages many times, and lamented the medical, public health, and societal failings. Today we turn our attention to the control of hypertension. That is much easier and far less expensive.

All physicians and medical organizations know that hypertension is a major attributable cause of many serious, expensive, and fatal illnesses. As many as 119 million (48%) of American adults have hypertension. The American Heart Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and hundreds of other organizations have set a new target of 130/80 (revised from 140/90) for blood pressure control and have launched a major initiative, Target: BP, to reach it.

That is just great. We all wish this massive effort to succeed where few others have. But do AHA, AMA, ACC, and others understand why most efforts to this point have failed? The blame is typically aimed at patients failing to adhere to their instructions. Maybe, but why? And how does Target: BP intend to convert chronic failure into success if it just continues to do everything they have been trying to do that doesn’t work?

At this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fewer than 48% of American patients with hypertension meet even the less stringent historical 140/90 goal.

A group practice in Ohio, PriMed Physicians, has consistently exceeded 90% or even 95% blood pressure control for its patients with hypertension for more than 10 years. Exemplary. How do they do it? This video of the 13th annual Lundberg Institute lecture describes this unique and successful program.

PriMed’s clinicians use the MedsEngine AI tool from MediSync and the NICaS (noninvasive cardiac system with impedance cardiography) to determine each patient’s unique blood pressure pathophysiology. Clinicians and patients understand that the simplest explanation of this pathophysiology encompasses three factors: (1) the volume of “water” (blood) in the system; (2) the strength of the pumping (pulsatile) process; and (3) the tightness (resistance) of the tubes that carry the blood. Patients “get it” when it is explained this way, and they cooperate.

At the first patient encounter, the Food and Drug Administration–approved PhysioFlow is employed to assess those three vital hemodynamic factors. The individual patient’s data are loaded into a tightly programed EHR-based algorithm with 37 clinical factors and five classes of drugs, providing multiple ways to influence the three key pathophysiologic processes. In this way, they arrive at the precise drug(s) and dosages for that patient. During the second visit, most patients are already showing improvement. By the third visit, the blood pressures of most patients have reached target control. After that, it is maintenance and tweaking.

These factors summarize why it works:

• Senior management belief, commitment, and leadership
• Informed buy-in from clinicians and patients
• A test that determines root causes of too much fluid, too strong pump action, or too tight pipes, and their proportionality
• An AI tool that matches those three pathophysiologic factors and 35 other clinical factors with the best drug or drugs (of many, not just a few) and dosages
• Persistent clinician-patient follow-up
• Refusal to accept failure

Since this approach is so successful, why is its use not everywhere?

It is not as if nobody noticed, even if you and many organizations have not. The American Medical Group Association recognized the program’s success by giving its top award to PriMed in 2015.

Klepper and Rodis wrote about this approach for managing multiple chronic conditions in 2021. Here’s a background article and an explainer, Clinical use of impedance cardiography for hemodynamic assessment of early cardiovascular disease and management of hypertension.

I found one pragmatic controlled clinical trial of impedance cardiography with a decision-support system from Beijing that did demonstrate clinical and statistical significance.

Frankly, we do need more rigorous, unbiased, large, controlled clinical trials assessing the MedsEngine and NICaS approach to managing blood pressure to facilitate a massive switch from the old and established (but failing) approach to a starkly better way.

Almost no one ever “completes a database.” All decision makers must act based upon the best data to which they have access. Data are often incomplete. The difference between success and mediocrity is often the ability of an individual or system to decide when enough information is enough and act accordingly.

Cost-effectiveness studies in three countries (United Kingdom, United States, and China) confirm sharply lower lifelong costs when blood pressure is well controlled. Of course.

For the American medical-industrial complex, lowered costs for managing common serious diseases may be an undesired rather than a good thing. In money-driven medicine, lower costs to the payer and purchaser translate to less revenue for the providers. Imagine all of those invasive and noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures forgone by prevention of hypertension. Is it possible that such an underlying truth is the real reason why American medicine is habitually unsuccessful at controlling blood pressure?

Right now, if my blood pressure were not well controlled (it is), I would find my way to Cincinnati, to give PriMed physicians, MediSync, and MedsEngine a crack at prolonging my useful life.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My Bing AI engine, when prompted, tells me that there are about 87 journals, 45 conferences, and 53 workshops presently dedicated exclusively to hypertension. All of that attention, and yet ...

What is going on?

The top killers of Americans remain coronary artery heart disease (26%), cancer (22%), and stroke (6%). The precursors and attributable risk factors for coronary artery heart disease include hypertension (40%), obesity (20%), diabetes (15%), and combustible tobacco use (15%). The key precursors and attributable risk factors for stroke are hypertension (53%), obesity (37%), diabetes (9%), and combustible tobacco use (11%). Obviously, these are estimates, with substantial overlap.

It’s pretty obvious that if the population and the health care systems of the United States were seriously interested in saving lives, they would strive diligently to control blood pressure, prevent obesity and diabetes, and eliminate combustible tobacco use.

We have addressed improving tobacco control and preventing obesity and diabetes on these pages many times, and lamented the medical, public health, and societal failings. Today we turn our attention to the control of hypertension. That is much easier and far less expensive.

All physicians and medical organizations know that hypertension is a major attributable cause of many serious, expensive, and fatal illnesses. As many as 119 million (48%) of American adults have hypertension. The American Heart Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and hundreds of other organizations have set a new target of 130/80 (revised from 140/90) for blood pressure control and have launched a major initiative, Target: BP, to reach it.

That is just great. We all wish this massive effort to succeed where few others have. But do AHA, AMA, ACC, and others understand why most efforts to this point have failed? The blame is typically aimed at patients failing to adhere to their instructions. Maybe, but why? And how does Target: BP intend to convert chronic failure into success if it just continues to do everything they have been trying to do that doesn’t work?

At this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fewer than 48% of American patients with hypertension meet even the less stringent historical 140/90 goal.

A group practice in Ohio, PriMed Physicians, has consistently exceeded 90% or even 95% blood pressure control for its patients with hypertension for more than 10 years. Exemplary. How do they do it? This video of the 13th annual Lundberg Institute lecture describes this unique and successful program.

PriMed’s clinicians use the MedsEngine AI tool from MediSync and the NICaS (noninvasive cardiac system with impedance cardiography) to determine each patient’s unique blood pressure pathophysiology. Clinicians and patients understand that the simplest explanation of this pathophysiology encompasses three factors: (1) the volume of “water” (blood) in the system; (2) the strength of the pumping (pulsatile) process; and (3) the tightness (resistance) of the tubes that carry the blood. Patients “get it” when it is explained this way, and they cooperate.

At the first patient encounter, the Food and Drug Administration–approved PhysioFlow is employed to assess those three vital hemodynamic factors. The individual patient’s data are loaded into a tightly programed EHR-based algorithm with 37 clinical factors and five classes of drugs, providing multiple ways to influence the three key pathophysiologic processes. In this way, they arrive at the precise drug(s) and dosages for that patient. During the second visit, most patients are already showing improvement. By the third visit, the blood pressures of most patients have reached target control. After that, it is maintenance and tweaking.

These factors summarize why it works:

• Senior management belief, commitment, and leadership
• Informed buy-in from clinicians and patients
• A test that determines root causes of too much fluid, too strong pump action, or too tight pipes, and their proportionality
• An AI tool that matches those three pathophysiologic factors and 35 other clinical factors with the best drug or drugs (of many, not just a few) and dosages
• Persistent clinician-patient follow-up
• Refusal to accept failure

Since this approach is so successful, why is its use not everywhere?

It is not as if nobody noticed, even if you and many organizations have not. The American Medical Group Association recognized the program’s success by giving its top award to PriMed in 2015.

Klepper and Rodis wrote about this approach for managing multiple chronic conditions in 2021. Here’s a background article and an explainer, Clinical use of impedance cardiography for hemodynamic assessment of early cardiovascular disease and management of hypertension.

I found one pragmatic controlled clinical trial of impedance cardiography with a decision-support system from Beijing that did demonstrate clinical and statistical significance.

Frankly, we do need more rigorous, unbiased, large, controlled clinical trials assessing the MedsEngine and NICaS approach to managing blood pressure to facilitate a massive switch from the old and established (but failing) approach to a starkly better way.

Almost no one ever “completes a database.” All decision makers must act based upon the best data to which they have access. Data are often incomplete. The difference between success and mediocrity is often the ability of an individual or system to decide when enough information is enough and act accordingly.

Cost-effectiveness studies in three countries (United Kingdom, United States, and China) confirm sharply lower lifelong costs when blood pressure is well controlled. Of course.

For the American medical-industrial complex, lowered costs for managing common serious diseases may be an undesired rather than a good thing. In money-driven medicine, lower costs to the payer and purchaser translate to less revenue for the providers. Imagine all of those invasive and noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures forgone by prevention of hypertension. Is it possible that such an underlying truth is the real reason why American medicine is habitually unsuccessful at controlling blood pressure?

Right now, if my blood pressure were not well controlled (it is), I would find my way to Cincinnati, to give PriMed physicians, MediSync, and MedsEngine a crack at prolonging my useful life.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Worsening heart failure is accompanied by a build-up of fluid in the lungs. An AI smartphone app that picks up changes in a heart failure patient’s voice quality caused by this fluid accumulation and then alerts the physician about them – nearly 3 weeks before that ongoing decompensation would necessitate hospitalization and/or lead the physician to urgently introduce intravenous diuretics – is getting experts to sit up and take notice.

“In this incredibly prevalent waxing and waning condition, finding ways to identify worsening heart failure to prevent hospitalization and progressive disease is incredibly important,” observed American Heart Association (AHA)-appointed discussant David Ouyang, MD, assistant professor, Smidt Heart Institute, Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles. “Heart failure remains among the most common causes of hospitalization for older adults in the United States.

“The other standout feature is that we all use our cell phones on a daily basis,” Dr. Ouyang said at a late-breaking trial press briefing at the AHA 2023 annual meeting where results of the HearO Community Study were presented. “The ability to capture data from routine speech (patients speak five sentences into their phones every morning) is remarkable ... The HearO^® technology was able to detect a substantial proportion of worsening heart failure events, with an average per individual of only three false positives over the course of a year. And, adherence to the study protocol was 81%. That’s higher than in many other kinds of routine patient monitoring studies,” he added.
 

Accumulating fluid changes speech

Increased hydration may affect speech parameters such as pitch, volume, and dynamics through swelling of soft tissues in the vocal tract (e.g., pharynx, velum, tongue, and vocal folds). In the Israeli study, investigators enrolled 416 adults (75% were male, average age was 68 years) whose New York Heart Association (NYHA) 2-3 heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction was stable but placed them at-risk for heart failure events. The study goal was to analyze their speech data using the HearO^® system to refine and test its ability to detect impending heart failure deterioration. Patients recorded five sentences in their native language (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, or English) into the smartphone app daily. In a training phase of the study, distinct speech measures from 263 participants were used to develop the AI algorithm. Then, the algorithm was used in the remaining 153 participants to validate the tool’s effectiveness. In its ultimate form, once a deviation from the patient’s predefined baseline is detected, the app will generate a notice and send it to the health care practitioners.

Lead study author William T. Abraham, MD, FAHA, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology; and a College of Medicine Distinguished Professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University in Columbus, reported that between Mar. 27, 2018, and Nov. 30, 2021, subjects in the training phase made recordings on 83% of days. They were followed for up to 44 months. The test group made recordings on 81% of days between Feb. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2023, and were followed for up to 31 months. Heart failure events were defined as hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic treatment for worsening heart failure.

In the training phase, the app accurately predicted 44 of 58 heart failure events (76%) and 81% of first events (n = 35) on average 24 days before hospitalization or need for intravenous fluids. In the validation phase, the app was 71% accurate in detecting 10 of 14 heart failure events and 77% of first events (n = 10) on average 26 days in advance of events. In both periods, the app generated about 3 unnecessary alerts per patient year.

Dr. Abraham concluded, “This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, keeping patients well and out of the hospital, through the implementation of proactive, outpatient care in response to voice changes.”

The HearO^® technology is being evaluated in an ongoing pivotal trial in the United State4s, Dr. Abraham said. The study is limited, he added, by the small number of patients and heart failure events, particularly in the test group.

“We continue to struggle with the burden of heart failure morbidity,” observed AHA press briefing moderator (and past AHA president) Clyde Yancy, MD, Magerstadt Professor at Northwestern University, Chicago. “So any tool that we can utilize and further refine that helps us address the need for hospitalization becomes very important. The idea that speech evaluation might give us sufficient early warning to forestall any admissions – and consider the cost savings attributable to that – is a very credible goal that we should continue to follow.” He pointed out that the technology enables assessments in the home environment for older patients who are less mobile.

In response to a press briefing question about the potential for physicians to be trained to hear early subtle voice changes on their own, Dr. Abraham stated, “I guess that is unknown, but the important difference is the system’s ability to take data in every day from patients and then process it automatically with AI.”

Joining in, Dr. Yancy said, “You know, this is interesting because even if you saw a patient once a month, which is an incredible frequency for any practice, there’s still 353 days that you haven’t seen the patient.” He noted that the AHA had just announced a multi-million dollar program to more deeply understand telemanagement. “So I think this is here to stay,” Dr. Yancy said.

Dr. Ouyang posed a further question. “Like with most AI recognition tools, we can now identify individuals at risk. How do we get from that step of identifying those at risk to improving their outcomes? This has been a critical question about heart failure, remote management, and remote monitoring, and I think it is a critical question for many of our AI tools.”

Dr. Abraham disclosed that he has received personal fees from Cordio Medical. Dr. Ouyang said that he had no disclosures relevant to this presentation.

Worsening heart failure is accompanied by a build-up of fluid in the lungs. An AI smartphone app that picks up changes in a heart failure patient’s voice quality caused by this fluid accumulation and then alerts the physician about them – nearly 3 weeks before that ongoing decompensation would necessitate hospitalization and/or lead the physician to urgently introduce intravenous diuretics – is getting experts to sit up and take notice.

“In this incredibly prevalent waxing and waning condition, finding ways to identify worsening heart failure to prevent hospitalization and progressive disease is incredibly important,” observed American Heart Association (AHA)-appointed discussant David Ouyang, MD, assistant professor, Smidt Heart Institute, Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles. “Heart failure remains among the most common causes of hospitalization for older adults in the United States.

“The other standout feature is that we all use our cell phones on a daily basis,” Dr. Ouyang said at a late-breaking trial press briefing at the AHA 2023 annual meeting where results of the HearO Community Study were presented. “The ability to capture data from routine speech (patients speak five sentences into their phones every morning) is remarkable ... The HearO^® technology was able to detect a substantial proportion of worsening heart failure events, with an average per individual of only three false positives over the course of a year. And, adherence to the study protocol was 81%. That’s higher than in many other kinds of routine patient monitoring studies,” he added.
 

Accumulating fluid changes speech

Increased hydration may affect speech parameters such as pitch, volume, and dynamics through swelling of soft tissues in the vocal tract (e.g., pharynx, velum, tongue, and vocal folds). In the Israeli study, investigators enrolled 416 adults (75% were male, average age was 68 years) whose New York Heart Association (NYHA) 2-3 heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction was stable but placed them at-risk for heart failure events. The study goal was to analyze their speech data using the HearO^® system to refine and test its ability to detect impending heart failure deterioration. Patients recorded five sentences in their native language (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, or English) into the smartphone app daily. In a training phase of the study, distinct speech measures from 263 participants were used to develop the AI algorithm. Then, the algorithm was used in the remaining 153 participants to validate the tool’s effectiveness. In its ultimate form, once a deviation from the patient’s predefined baseline is detected, the app will generate a notice and send it to the health care practitioners.

Lead study author William T. Abraham, MD, FAHA, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology; and a College of Medicine Distinguished Professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University in Columbus, reported that between Mar. 27, 2018, and Nov. 30, 2021, subjects in the training phase made recordings on 83% of days. They were followed for up to 44 months. The test group made recordings on 81% of days between Feb. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2023, and were followed for up to 31 months. Heart failure events were defined as hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic treatment for worsening heart failure.

In the training phase, the app accurately predicted 44 of 58 heart failure events (76%) and 81% of first events (n = 35) on average 24 days before hospitalization or need for intravenous fluids. In the validation phase, the app was 71% accurate in detecting 10 of 14 heart failure events and 77% of first events (n = 10) on average 26 days in advance of events. In both periods, the app generated about 3 unnecessary alerts per patient year.

Dr. Abraham concluded, “This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, keeping patients well and out of the hospital, through the implementation of proactive, outpatient care in response to voice changes.”

The HearO^® technology is being evaluated in an ongoing pivotal trial in the United State4s, Dr. Abraham said. The study is limited, he added, by the small number of patients and heart failure events, particularly in the test group.

“We continue to struggle with the burden of heart failure morbidity,” observed AHA press briefing moderator (and past AHA president) Clyde Yancy, MD, Magerstadt Professor at Northwestern University, Chicago. “So any tool that we can utilize and further refine that helps us address the need for hospitalization becomes very important. The idea that speech evaluation might give us sufficient early warning to forestall any admissions – and consider the cost savings attributable to that – is a very credible goal that we should continue to follow.” He pointed out that the technology enables assessments in the home environment for older patients who are less mobile.

In response to a press briefing question about the potential for physicians to be trained to hear early subtle voice changes on their own, Dr. Abraham stated, “I guess that is unknown, but the important difference is the system’s ability to take data in every day from patients and then process it automatically with AI.”

Joining in, Dr. Yancy said, “You know, this is interesting because even if you saw a patient once a month, which is an incredible frequency for any practice, there’s still 353 days that you haven’t seen the patient.” He noted that the AHA had just announced a multi-million dollar program to more deeply understand telemanagement. “So I think this is here to stay,” Dr. Yancy said.

Dr. Ouyang posed a further question. “Like with most AI recognition tools, we can now identify individuals at risk. How do we get from that step of identifying those at risk to improving their outcomes? This has been a critical question about heart failure, remote management, and remote monitoring, and I think it is a critical question for many of our AI tools.”

Dr. Abraham disclosed that he has received personal fees from Cordio Medical. Dr. Ouyang said that he had no disclosures relevant to this presentation.

Worsening heart failure is accompanied by a build-up of fluid in the lungs. An AI smartphone app that picks up changes in a heart failure patient’s voice quality caused by this fluid accumulation and then alerts the physician about them – nearly 3 weeks before that ongoing decompensation would necessitate hospitalization and/or lead the physician to urgently introduce intravenous diuretics – is getting experts to sit up and take notice.

“In this incredibly prevalent waxing and waning condition, finding ways to identify worsening heart failure to prevent hospitalization and progressive disease is incredibly important,” observed American Heart Association (AHA)-appointed discussant David Ouyang, MD, assistant professor, Smidt Heart Institute, Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles. “Heart failure remains among the most common causes of hospitalization for older adults in the United States.

“The other standout feature is that we all use our cell phones on a daily basis,” Dr. Ouyang said at a late-breaking trial press briefing at the AHA 2023 annual meeting where results of the HearO Community Study were presented. “The ability to capture data from routine speech (patients speak five sentences into their phones every morning) is remarkable ... The HearO^® technology was able to detect a substantial proportion of worsening heart failure events, with an average per individual of only three false positives over the course of a year. And, adherence to the study protocol was 81%. That’s higher than in many other kinds of routine patient monitoring studies,” he added.
 

Accumulating fluid changes speech

Increased hydration may affect speech parameters such as pitch, volume, and dynamics through swelling of soft tissues in the vocal tract (e.g., pharynx, velum, tongue, and vocal folds). In the Israeli study, investigators enrolled 416 adults (75% were male, average age was 68 years) whose New York Heart Association (NYHA) 2-3 heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction was stable but placed them at-risk for heart failure events. The study goal was to analyze their speech data using the HearO^® system to refine and test its ability to detect impending heart failure deterioration. Patients recorded five sentences in their native language (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, or English) into the smartphone app daily. In a training phase of the study, distinct speech measures from 263 participants were used to develop the AI algorithm. Then, the algorithm was used in the remaining 153 participants to validate the tool’s effectiveness. In its ultimate form, once a deviation from the patient’s predefined baseline is detected, the app will generate a notice and send it to the health care practitioners.

Lead study author William T. Abraham, MD, FAHA, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology; and a College of Medicine Distinguished Professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University in Columbus, reported that between Mar. 27, 2018, and Nov. 30, 2021, subjects in the training phase made recordings on 83% of days. They were followed for up to 44 months. The test group made recordings on 81% of days between Feb. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2023, and were followed for up to 31 months. Heart failure events were defined as hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic treatment for worsening heart failure.

In the training phase, the app accurately predicted 44 of 58 heart failure events (76%) and 81% of first events (n = 35) on average 24 days before hospitalization or need for intravenous fluids. In the validation phase, the app was 71% accurate in detecting 10 of 14 heart failure events and 77% of first events (n = 10) on average 26 days in advance of events. In both periods, the app generated about 3 unnecessary alerts per patient year.

Dr. Abraham concluded, “This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, keeping patients well and out of the hospital, through the implementation of proactive, outpatient care in response to voice changes.”

The HearO^® technology is being evaluated in an ongoing pivotal trial in the United State4s, Dr. Abraham said. The study is limited, he added, by the small number of patients and heart failure events, particularly in the test group.

“We continue to struggle with the burden of heart failure morbidity,” observed AHA press briefing moderator (and past AHA president) Clyde Yancy, MD, Magerstadt Professor at Northwestern University, Chicago. “So any tool that we can utilize and further refine that helps us address the need for hospitalization becomes very important. The idea that speech evaluation might give us sufficient early warning to forestall any admissions – and consider the cost savings attributable to that – is a very credible goal that we should continue to follow.” He pointed out that the technology enables assessments in the home environment for older patients who are less mobile.

In response to a press briefing question about the potential for physicians to be trained to hear early subtle voice changes on their own, Dr. Abraham stated, “I guess that is unknown, but the important difference is the system’s ability to take data in every day from patients and then process it automatically with AI.”

Joining in, Dr. Yancy said, “You know, this is interesting because even if you saw a patient once a month, which is an incredible frequency for any practice, there’s still 353 days that you haven’t seen the patient.” He noted that the AHA had just announced a multi-million dollar program to more deeply understand telemanagement. “So I think this is here to stay,” Dr. Yancy said.

Dr. Ouyang posed a further question. “Like with most AI recognition tools, we can now identify individuals at risk. How do we get from that step of identifying those at risk to improving their outcomes? This has been a critical question about heart failure, remote management, and remote monitoring, and I think it is a critical question for many of our AI tools.”

Dr. Abraham disclosed that he has received personal fees from Cordio Medical. Dr. Ouyang said that he had no disclosures relevant to this presentation.

PHILADELPHIA – The first in-human study of a gene therapy designed to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol has shown a signal that the treatment works in a small group of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH).

While one of four patients in the highest-dose groups had a myocardial infarction the day after getting the treatment, investigators have enough confidence to go forward with the next phase of study.

“The HEART-1trial demonstrated the first human proof of concept for in vivo DNA-based editing,” said Andrew Bellinger, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer of Verve Therapeutics, the company developing the treatment. “We saw dose-dependent–based reductions in LDL and the PCSK9 protein.”

The HEART-1 study was a phase 1b trial of VERVE-101, a CRISPR-based gene editing mechanism designed to inactivate the liver gene PCSK9, which contributes to raising cholesterol. “Human genetics suggest that turning off the cholesterol-raising gene PCSK9 in the liver will durably reduce LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Bellinger said in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Lipid nanoparticle

VERVE-101 is designed to be a single-course treatment to specifically treat HeFH, Dr. Bellinger said. He explained how the therapy, given by intravenous infusion, differs from adeno-associated virus vectors that have dominated gene therapy platforms.

“It’s a lipid nanoparticle encapsulating two RNA nanoparticles that are taken up by hepatocytes in the liver from the blood by the LDL receptor,” he explained. “Then the A-to-G–based editor protein and the guide mRNA protein together find the PCSK9 gene in the liver.” That single DNA-base change in one position of the PCSK9 gene is able to turn off PCSK9 production in those liver cells.

Dr. Bellinger presented interim results of the first 10 patients treated in the open-label, single ascending dose study. The patients were male and female, ages 18-75, with HeFH, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia despite being on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

They received four different doses: Three patients each received 0.1, 0.3, and 0.45 mg/kg; and one patient received 0.6 mg/kg.

Reductions in blood PCSK9 levels were measured across all dosing groups at 4 weeks, but they were most pronounced in the two highest groups, Dr. Bellinger said. Two patients in the 0.45-mg/kg group had reductions of 59% and 84%. The sole patient in the 0.6-mg/kg arm had a reduction of 47%.

Regarding the 84% reduction in one individual, Dr. Bellinger said, “Roughly 85% of PCSK9 comes from the liver. These data suggest that we have successfully made a single base pair change in both copies of the PCSK9 gene in nearly every hepatocyte in the liver of this individual.”

Those benefits carried over to LDL cholesterol measures, with the highest-dose patients registering 39%, 48% and 55% reductions.
 

Safety outcomes

Two patients had serious cardiovascular (CV) events. One in the 0.3-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest 5 weeks after receiving the infusion. A patient in the 0.45-mg/kg arm had a myocardial infarction a day after getting the infusion and then nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) 4 weeks later. Dr. Bellinger said an independent review panel determined that the CV events were in line with outcomes for high-risk patients and weren’t directly related to treatment.

He added, “Increased liver transaminases were seen in patients treated in the higher-dose cohorts. It’s transient, asymptomatic, and it resolved quickly.”

The next step involves pursuing only the 0.45- and 0.6-mg/kg doses in the next dose-escalation phase and enrolling an expansion cohort in 2024, Dr. Bellinger said, with a plan to initiate a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in 2025.
 

First, do no harm

Karol Watson, MD, PhD, a women’s cardiovascular disease specialist at UCLA, said the promise of gene therapy was “revolutionary,” but that proving safety was critical going forward.

“You’re changing the genome forever,” she said. “Safety is going to be of the utmost importance especially because there are currently safe and efficacious strategies available for lipid lowering. This is a strategy that could be revolutionary, but we have to make sure that it’s safe.”

She pointed to a multinational study from earlier this year that warned about pathogenic consequences from CRISPR-based gene editing. “There are concerns about gene editing,” Dr. Watson said. “This was a whole-genome analysis showing atypical nonhomologous on-target effects of genome editing. Of course this is a very different strategy from what we heard today, but, again, we have to know that this is safe.”

Despite the small sample size from the two highest-dose groups in the study, Dr. Watson said the investigators have reason for going forward. “I think the preclinical data supports moving forward, but the next studies will have to be scrutinized carefully,” she said. “This is a preventive therapy; the first tenet is to do no harm.”

Dr. Bellinger is an employee of Verve Therapeutics, which sponsored the trial. Dr. Watson disclosed relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Lilly and Novartis.

PHILADELPHIA – The first in-human study of a gene therapy designed to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol has shown a signal that the treatment works in a small group of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH).

While one of four patients in the highest-dose groups had a myocardial infarction the day after getting the treatment, investigators have enough confidence to go forward with the next phase of study.

“The HEART-1trial demonstrated the first human proof of concept for in vivo DNA-based editing,” said Andrew Bellinger, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer of Verve Therapeutics, the company developing the treatment. “We saw dose-dependent–based reductions in LDL and the PCSK9 protein.”

The HEART-1 study was a phase 1b trial of VERVE-101, a CRISPR-based gene editing mechanism designed to inactivate the liver gene PCSK9, which contributes to raising cholesterol. “Human genetics suggest that turning off the cholesterol-raising gene PCSK9 in the liver will durably reduce LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Bellinger said in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Lipid nanoparticle

VERVE-101 is designed to be a single-course treatment to specifically treat HeFH, Dr. Bellinger said. He explained how the therapy, given by intravenous infusion, differs from adeno-associated virus vectors that have dominated gene therapy platforms.

“It’s a lipid nanoparticle encapsulating two RNA nanoparticles that are taken up by hepatocytes in the liver from the blood by the LDL receptor,” he explained. “Then the A-to-G–based editor protein and the guide mRNA protein together find the PCSK9 gene in the liver.” That single DNA-base change in one position of the PCSK9 gene is able to turn off PCSK9 production in those liver cells.

Dr. Bellinger presented interim results of the first 10 patients treated in the open-label, single ascending dose study. The patients were male and female, ages 18-75, with HeFH, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia despite being on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

They received four different doses: Three patients each received 0.1, 0.3, and 0.45 mg/kg; and one patient received 0.6 mg/kg.

Reductions in blood PCSK9 levels were measured across all dosing groups at 4 weeks, but they were most pronounced in the two highest groups, Dr. Bellinger said. Two patients in the 0.45-mg/kg group had reductions of 59% and 84%. The sole patient in the 0.6-mg/kg arm had a reduction of 47%.

Regarding the 84% reduction in one individual, Dr. Bellinger said, “Roughly 85% of PCSK9 comes from the liver. These data suggest that we have successfully made a single base pair change in both copies of the PCSK9 gene in nearly every hepatocyte in the liver of this individual.”

Those benefits carried over to LDL cholesterol measures, with the highest-dose patients registering 39%, 48% and 55% reductions.
 

Safety outcomes

Two patients had serious cardiovascular (CV) events. One in the 0.3-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest 5 weeks after receiving the infusion. A patient in the 0.45-mg/kg arm had a myocardial infarction a day after getting the infusion and then nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) 4 weeks later. Dr. Bellinger said an independent review panel determined that the CV events were in line with outcomes for high-risk patients and weren’t directly related to treatment.

He added, “Increased liver transaminases were seen in patients treated in the higher-dose cohorts. It’s transient, asymptomatic, and it resolved quickly.”

The next step involves pursuing only the 0.45- and 0.6-mg/kg doses in the next dose-escalation phase and enrolling an expansion cohort in 2024, Dr. Bellinger said, with a plan to initiate a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in 2025.
 

First, do no harm

Karol Watson, MD, PhD, a women’s cardiovascular disease specialist at UCLA, said the promise of gene therapy was “revolutionary,” but that proving safety was critical going forward.

“You’re changing the genome forever,” she said. “Safety is going to be of the utmost importance especially because there are currently safe and efficacious strategies available for lipid lowering. This is a strategy that could be revolutionary, but we have to make sure that it’s safe.”

She pointed to a multinational study from earlier this year that warned about pathogenic consequences from CRISPR-based gene editing. “There are concerns about gene editing,” Dr. Watson said. “This was a whole-genome analysis showing atypical nonhomologous on-target effects of genome editing. Of course this is a very different strategy from what we heard today, but, again, we have to know that this is safe.”

Despite the small sample size from the two highest-dose groups in the study, Dr. Watson said the investigators have reason for going forward. “I think the preclinical data supports moving forward, but the next studies will have to be scrutinized carefully,” she said. “This is a preventive therapy; the first tenet is to do no harm.”

Dr. Bellinger is an employee of Verve Therapeutics, which sponsored the trial. Dr. Watson disclosed relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Lilly and Novartis.

PHILADELPHIA – The first in-human study of a gene therapy designed to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol has shown a signal that the treatment works in a small group of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH).

While one of four patients in the highest-dose groups had a myocardial infarction the day after getting the treatment, investigators have enough confidence to go forward with the next phase of study.

“The HEART-1trial demonstrated the first human proof of concept for in vivo DNA-based editing,” said Andrew Bellinger, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer of Verve Therapeutics, the company developing the treatment. “We saw dose-dependent–based reductions in LDL and the PCSK9 protein.”

The HEART-1 study was a phase 1b trial of VERVE-101, a CRISPR-based gene editing mechanism designed to inactivate the liver gene PCSK9, which contributes to raising cholesterol. “Human genetics suggest that turning off the cholesterol-raising gene PCSK9 in the liver will durably reduce LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Bellinger said in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Lipid nanoparticle

VERVE-101 is designed to be a single-course treatment to specifically treat HeFH, Dr. Bellinger said. He explained how the therapy, given by intravenous infusion, differs from adeno-associated virus vectors that have dominated gene therapy platforms.

“It’s a lipid nanoparticle encapsulating two RNA nanoparticles that are taken up by hepatocytes in the liver from the blood by the LDL receptor,” he explained. “Then the A-to-G–based editor protein and the guide mRNA protein together find the PCSK9 gene in the liver.” That single DNA-base change in one position of the PCSK9 gene is able to turn off PCSK9 production in those liver cells.

Dr. Bellinger presented interim results of the first 10 patients treated in the open-label, single ascending dose study. The patients were male and female, ages 18-75, with HeFH, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia despite being on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

They received four different doses: Three patients each received 0.1, 0.3, and 0.45 mg/kg; and one patient received 0.6 mg/kg.

Reductions in blood PCSK9 levels were measured across all dosing groups at 4 weeks, but they were most pronounced in the two highest groups, Dr. Bellinger said. Two patients in the 0.45-mg/kg group had reductions of 59% and 84%. The sole patient in the 0.6-mg/kg arm had a reduction of 47%.

Regarding the 84% reduction in one individual, Dr. Bellinger said, “Roughly 85% of PCSK9 comes from the liver. These data suggest that we have successfully made a single base pair change in both copies of the PCSK9 gene in nearly every hepatocyte in the liver of this individual.”

Those benefits carried over to LDL cholesterol measures, with the highest-dose patients registering 39%, 48% and 55% reductions.
 

Safety outcomes

Two patients had serious cardiovascular (CV) events. One in the 0.3-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest 5 weeks after receiving the infusion. A patient in the 0.45-mg/kg arm had a myocardial infarction a day after getting the infusion and then nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) 4 weeks later. Dr. Bellinger said an independent review panel determined that the CV events were in line with outcomes for high-risk patients and weren’t directly related to treatment.

He added, “Increased liver transaminases were seen in patients treated in the higher-dose cohorts. It’s transient, asymptomatic, and it resolved quickly.”

The next step involves pursuing only the 0.45- and 0.6-mg/kg doses in the next dose-escalation phase and enrolling an expansion cohort in 2024, Dr. Bellinger said, with a plan to initiate a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in 2025.
 

First, do no harm

Karol Watson, MD, PhD, a women’s cardiovascular disease specialist at UCLA, said the promise of gene therapy was “revolutionary,” but that proving safety was critical going forward.

“You’re changing the genome forever,” she said. “Safety is going to be of the utmost importance especially because there are currently safe and efficacious strategies available for lipid lowering. This is a strategy that could be revolutionary, but we have to make sure that it’s safe.”

She pointed to a multinational study from earlier this year that warned about pathogenic consequences from CRISPR-based gene editing. “There are concerns about gene editing,” Dr. Watson said. “This was a whole-genome analysis showing atypical nonhomologous on-target effects of genome editing. Of course this is a very different strategy from what we heard today, but, again, we have to know that this is safe.”

Despite the small sample size from the two highest-dose groups in the study, Dr. Watson said the investigators have reason for going forward. “I think the preclinical data supports moving forward, but the next studies will have to be scrutinized carefully,” she said. “This is a preventive therapy; the first tenet is to do no harm.”

Dr. Bellinger is an employee of Verve Therapeutics, which sponsored the trial. Dr. Watson disclosed relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Lilly and Novartis.