Cardiology

TOPLINE:

Exposure to air pollutants is linked to emergency hospital admissions for stroke shortly after the exposure, with the risk being pronounced in men and individuals aged less than 65 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Limited studies have investigated the association between hourly exposure to air pollutants and specific stroke subtypes, especially in regions with moderate to high levels of air pollution.
• The multicenter case-crossover study evaluated the association between hourly exposure to air pollution and stroke among 86,635 emergency admissions for stroke across 10 hospitals in 3 cities.
• Of 86,635 admissions, 79,478 were admitted for ischemic stroke, 3,122 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 4,035 for undetermined type of stroke.
• Hourly levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respirable PM (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were collected from the China National Environmental Monitoring Center.

TAKEAWAY:

• Exposure to NO2 and SO2 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke shortly after exposure by 3.34% (95% confidence interval, 1.41%-5.31%) and 2.81% (95% CI, 1.15%-4.51%), respectively.
• Among men, exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke by 3.40% (95% CI, 1.21%-5.64%) and 4.33% (95% CI, 2.18%-6.53%), respectively.
• Among patients aged less than 65 years, exposure to PM10 and NO2 increased the risk for emergency admissions for stroke shortly after exposure by 4.88% (95% CI, 2.29%-7.54%) and 5.59% (95% CI, 2.34%-8.93%), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These variations in susceptibility highlight the importance of implementing effective health protection measures to reduce exposure to air pollution and mitigate the risk of stroke in younger and male populations,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xin Lv, MD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing. It was published online in the journal Stroke.

LIMITATIONS:

• Using data from the nearest monitoring site to the hospital address may lead to localized variations in pollution concentrations when assessing exposure.
• There may be a possibility of residual confounding resulting from time-varying lifestyle-related factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Project for Medical Research and Health Sciences. No disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Exposure to air pollutants is linked to emergency hospital admissions for stroke shortly after the exposure, with the risk being pronounced in men and individuals aged less than 65 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Limited studies have investigated the association between hourly exposure to air pollutants and specific stroke subtypes, especially in regions with moderate to high levels of air pollution.
• The multicenter case-crossover study evaluated the association between hourly exposure to air pollution and stroke among 86,635 emergency admissions for stroke across 10 hospitals in 3 cities.
• Of 86,635 admissions, 79,478 were admitted for ischemic stroke, 3,122 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 4,035 for undetermined type of stroke.
• Hourly levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respirable PM (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were collected from the China National Environmental Monitoring Center.

TAKEAWAY:

• Exposure to NO2 and SO2 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke shortly after exposure by 3.34% (95% confidence interval, 1.41%-5.31%) and 2.81% (95% CI, 1.15%-4.51%), respectively.
• Among men, exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke by 3.40% (95% CI, 1.21%-5.64%) and 4.33% (95% CI, 2.18%-6.53%), respectively.
• Among patients aged less than 65 years, exposure to PM10 and NO2 increased the risk for emergency admissions for stroke shortly after exposure by 4.88% (95% CI, 2.29%-7.54%) and 5.59% (95% CI, 2.34%-8.93%), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These variations in susceptibility highlight the importance of implementing effective health protection measures to reduce exposure to air pollution and mitigate the risk of stroke in younger and male populations,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xin Lv, MD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing. It was published online in the journal Stroke.

LIMITATIONS:

• Using data from the nearest monitoring site to the hospital address may lead to localized variations in pollution concentrations when assessing exposure.
• There may be a possibility of residual confounding resulting from time-varying lifestyle-related factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Project for Medical Research and Health Sciences. No disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Exposure to air pollutants is linked to emergency hospital admissions for stroke shortly after the exposure, with the risk being pronounced in men and individuals aged less than 65 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Limited studies have investigated the association between hourly exposure to air pollutants and specific stroke subtypes, especially in regions with moderate to high levels of air pollution.
• The multicenter case-crossover study evaluated the association between hourly exposure to air pollution and stroke among 86,635 emergency admissions for stroke across 10 hospitals in 3 cities.
• Of 86,635 admissions, 79,478 were admitted for ischemic stroke, 3,122 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 4,035 for undetermined type of stroke.
• Hourly levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respirable PM (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were collected from the China National Environmental Monitoring Center.

TAKEAWAY:

• Exposure to NO2 and SO2 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke shortly after exposure by 3.34% (95% confidence interval, 1.41%-5.31%) and 2.81% (95% CI, 1.15%-4.51%), respectively.
• Among men, exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke by 3.40% (95% CI, 1.21%-5.64%) and 4.33% (95% CI, 2.18%-6.53%), respectively.
• Among patients aged less than 65 years, exposure to PM10 and NO2 increased the risk for emergency admissions for stroke shortly after exposure by 4.88% (95% CI, 2.29%-7.54%) and 5.59% (95% CI, 2.34%-8.93%), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These variations in susceptibility highlight the importance of implementing effective health protection measures to reduce exposure to air pollution and mitigate the risk of stroke in younger and male populations,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xin Lv, MD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing. It was published online in the journal Stroke.

LIMITATIONS:

• Using data from the nearest monitoring site to the hospital address may lead to localized variations in pollution concentrations when assessing exposure.
• There may be a possibility of residual confounding resulting from time-varying lifestyle-related factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Project for Medical Research and Health Sciences. No disclosures were reported.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

PHILADELPHIA – An artificial intelligence platform that sends alerts based on electrocardiography results enabled cardiologists and emergency department physicians at a major hospital in Taiwan to move patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) into the catheterization laboratory 9 minutes sooner than the conventional protocol that did not use AI.

“This is the first randomized clinical trial to demonstrate the reduction of electrocardiography to coronary cath lab activation time" from 52.3 to 43.3 minutes (P = .003), Chin Sheng Lin, MD, PhD, director of cardiology at the National Defense Medical Center Tri-Service General Hospital in Taipei City, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

AHA/Scott Morgan

Dr. Lin reported results from the Artificial Intelligence Enabled Rapid Identify of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Using Electrocardiogram (ARISE) trial. The trial included 43,994 patients who came to the hospital’s emergency and inpatient departments with at least one ECG but no history of coronary angiography (CAG) in the previous 3 days between May 2022 and April 2023.

They were randomly assigned by date to either AI-ECG for rapid identification and triage of STEMI or standard care. Overall, 145 patients were finally diagnosed with STEMI based on CAG, 77 in the intervention group and 68 in the control group. All patients were seen by one of 20 cardiologists who participated in the study.

Dr. Lin and his group developed an AI algorithm that captures the ECG readout in the emergency department, analyzes the data and then sends a high-risk alarm to the front-line physician and on-duty cardiologist to activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
 

Trial results

The differentiation between groups was even more pronounced in ED patients during regular working hours, Dr. Lin said, at 61.6 minutes for the intervention group vs. 33.1 minutes for controls (P = .001).*

He noted that the AI group showed a trend towards fewer cases of clinically suspected STEMI but not getting CAG, 6.5% vs. 15.8%, for an odds ratio of 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.94).

The AI-ECG model also demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy. “With this AI-ECG system, because it has a very high accuracy and a high positive predictive variable that reach 88%, we can send a message to the on-duty cardiologists and also the emergency room physician and they can send the patients to receive the operation or the PCI as soon as possible,” Dr. Lin said in an interview.

The time differential is critical, Dr. Lin said. “For the patient with acute myocardial infarction, 1 minute is critical, because the patients can die within minutes,” he said. “If we can save 9 minutes I think we can save more lives, but it needs a larger study to evaluate that.”

Dr. Lin acknowledged a few limitations with the trial, among them its single-center nature, relatively small sample size of STEMI patients and the short-term of follow-up. Future study should involve multiple centers along with a prehospital, emergency medical services AI-ECG model.
 

‘Novel’ for an AI trial

“This is an incredible application of an AI technology in a real-world problem,” said Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who did not participate in the study. “What I really love about this study is it’s actually a clinical problem that has large implications, particularly for under-resourced areas.”

AHA/Scott Morgan

Using a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the AI platform is “very, very novel,” he said, and called the time improvement “enormous.” Referencing Dr. Lin’s next steps for studying the AI-ECG platform, Dr. Nallamothu said, “if we could push this up even earlier to paramedics and EMTs and prehospital systems, there would be a lot of excitement there.”

He noted the sensitivity analysis resulted in a rate of 88.8% along with the positive predictive value of 88%. “Missing 1 out of 10 ST-elevation MIs in my eyes can still be considered a big deal, so we need to know if this is happening in particular types of patients, for example women versus men, or other groups.”

However, some investigations reported false activation rates as high as 33%, he said. “So, to say that, the positive predictive value is at 88% is really exciting and I think it can make a real inroads,” Dr. Nallamothu said.

Dr. Lin and Dr. Nallamothu have no relevant disclosures.

*Correction, 11/20/23: An earlier version of this article misstated in both trial arms the time to coronary catheterization lab activation.

PHILADELPHIA – An artificial intelligence platform that sends alerts based on electrocardiography results enabled cardiologists and emergency department physicians at a major hospital in Taiwan to move patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) into the catheterization laboratory 9 minutes sooner than the conventional protocol that did not use AI.

“This is the first randomized clinical trial to demonstrate the reduction of electrocardiography to coronary cath lab activation time" from 52.3 to 43.3 minutes (P = .003), Chin Sheng Lin, MD, PhD, director of cardiology at the National Defense Medical Center Tri-Service General Hospital in Taipei City, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

AHA/Scott Morgan

Dr. Lin reported results from the Artificial Intelligence Enabled Rapid Identify of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Using Electrocardiogram (ARISE) trial. The trial included 43,994 patients who came to the hospital’s emergency and inpatient departments with at least one ECG but no history of coronary angiography (CAG) in the previous 3 days between May 2022 and April 2023.

They were randomly assigned by date to either AI-ECG for rapid identification and triage of STEMI or standard care. Overall, 145 patients were finally diagnosed with STEMI based on CAG, 77 in the intervention group and 68 in the control group. All patients were seen by one of 20 cardiologists who participated in the study.

Dr. Lin and his group developed an AI algorithm that captures the ECG readout in the emergency department, analyzes the data and then sends a high-risk alarm to the front-line physician and on-duty cardiologist to activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
 

Trial results

The differentiation between groups was even more pronounced in ED patients during regular working hours, Dr. Lin said, at 61.6 minutes for the intervention group vs. 33.1 minutes for controls (P = .001).*

He noted that the AI group showed a trend towards fewer cases of clinically suspected STEMI but not getting CAG, 6.5% vs. 15.8%, for an odds ratio of 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.94).

The AI-ECG model also demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy. “With this AI-ECG system, because it has a very high accuracy and a high positive predictive variable that reach 88%, we can send a message to the on-duty cardiologists and also the emergency room physician and they can send the patients to receive the operation or the PCI as soon as possible,” Dr. Lin said in an interview.

The time differential is critical, Dr. Lin said. “For the patient with acute myocardial infarction, 1 minute is critical, because the patients can die within minutes,” he said. “If we can save 9 minutes I think we can save more lives, but it needs a larger study to evaluate that.”

Dr. Lin acknowledged a few limitations with the trial, among them its single-center nature, relatively small sample size of STEMI patients and the short-term of follow-up. Future study should involve multiple centers along with a prehospital, emergency medical services AI-ECG model.
 

‘Novel’ for an AI trial

“This is an incredible application of an AI technology in a real-world problem,” said Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who did not participate in the study. “What I really love about this study is it’s actually a clinical problem that has large implications, particularly for under-resourced areas.”

AHA/Scott Morgan

Using a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the AI platform is “very, very novel,” he said, and called the time improvement “enormous.” Referencing Dr. Lin’s next steps for studying the AI-ECG platform, Dr. Nallamothu said, “if we could push this up even earlier to paramedics and EMTs and prehospital systems, there would be a lot of excitement there.”

He noted the sensitivity analysis resulted in a rate of 88.8% along with the positive predictive value of 88%. “Missing 1 out of 10 ST-elevation MIs in my eyes can still be considered a big deal, so we need to know if this is happening in particular types of patients, for example women versus men, or other groups.”

However, some investigations reported false activation rates as high as 33%, he said. “So, to say that, the positive predictive value is at 88% is really exciting and I think it can make a real inroads,” Dr. Nallamothu said.

Dr. Lin and Dr. Nallamothu have no relevant disclosures.

*Correction, 11/20/23: An earlier version of this article misstated in both trial arms the time to coronary catheterization lab activation.

PHILADELPHIA – An artificial intelligence platform that sends alerts based on electrocardiography results enabled cardiologists and emergency department physicians at a major hospital in Taiwan to move patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) into the catheterization laboratory 9 minutes sooner than the conventional protocol that did not use AI.

“This is the first randomized clinical trial to demonstrate the reduction of electrocardiography to coronary cath lab activation time" from 52.3 to 43.3 minutes (P = .003), Chin Sheng Lin, MD, PhD, director of cardiology at the National Defense Medical Center Tri-Service General Hospital in Taipei City, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

AHA/Scott Morgan

Dr. Lin reported results from the Artificial Intelligence Enabled Rapid Identify of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Using Electrocardiogram (ARISE) trial. The trial included 43,994 patients who came to the hospital’s emergency and inpatient departments with at least one ECG but no history of coronary angiography (CAG) in the previous 3 days between May 2022 and April 2023.

They were randomly assigned by date to either AI-ECG for rapid identification and triage of STEMI or standard care. Overall, 145 patients were finally diagnosed with STEMI based on CAG, 77 in the intervention group and 68 in the control group. All patients were seen by one of 20 cardiologists who participated in the study.

Dr. Lin and his group developed an AI algorithm that captures the ECG readout in the emergency department, analyzes the data and then sends a high-risk alarm to the front-line physician and on-duty cardiologist to activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
 

Trial results

The differentiation between groups was even more pronounced in ED patients during regular working hours, Dr. Lin said, at 61.6 minutes for the intervention group vs. 33.1 minutes for controls (P = .001).*

He noted that the AI group showed a trend towards fewer cases of clinically suspected STEMI but not getting CAG, 6.5% vs. 15.8%, for an odds ratio of 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.94).

The AI-ECG model also demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy. “With this AI-ECG system, because it has a very high accuracy and a high positive predictive variable that reach 88%, we can send a message to the on-duty cardiologists and also the emergency room physician and they can send the patients to receive the operation or the PCI as soon as possible,” Dr. Lin said in an interview.

The time differential is critical, Dr. Lin said. “For the patient with acute myocardial infarction, 1 minute is critical, because the patients can die within minutes,” he said. “If we can save 9 minutes I think we can save more lives, but it needs a larger study to evaluate that.”

Dr. Lin acknowledged a few limitations with the trial, among them its single-center nature, relatively small sample size of STEMI patients and the short-term of follow-up. Future study should involve multiple centers along with a prehospital, emergency medical services AI-ECG model.
 

‘Novel’ for an AI trial

“This is an incredible application of an AI technology in a real-world problem,” said Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who did not participate in the study. “What I really love about this study is it’s actually a clinical problem that has large implications, particularly for under-resourced areas.”

AHA/Scott Morgan

Using a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the AI platform is “very, very novel,” he said, and called the time improvement “enormous.” Referencing Dr. Lin’s next steps for studying the AI-ECG platform, Dr. Nallamothu said, “if we could push this up even earlier to paramedics and EMTs and prehospital systems, there would be a lot of excitement there.”

He noted the sensitivity analysis resulted in a rate of 88.8% along with the positive predictive value of 88%. “Missing 1 out of 10 ST-elevation MIs in my eyes can still be considered a big deal, so we need to know if this is happening in particular types of patients, for example women versus men, or other groups.”

However, some investigations reported false activation rates as high as 33%, he said. “So, to say that, the positive predictive value is at 88% is really exciting and I think it can make a real inroads,” Dr. Nallamothu said.

Dr. Lin and Dr. Nallamothu have no relevant disclosures.

*Correction, 11/20/23: An earlier version of this article misstated in both trial arms the time to coronary catheterization lab activation.

Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.

Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health. 

The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time. 

“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.

The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death. 

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting. 

A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin. 

Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers. 

The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”  

Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
 

Limitations

Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.

“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.

The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said. 

One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.

What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
 

Impact on patient care

That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.

If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion. 

More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most. 

You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them. 

Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.

The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice. 

“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.

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

Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.

Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health. 

The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time. 

“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.

The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death. 

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting. 

A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin. 

Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers. 

The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”  

Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
 

Limitations

Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.

“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.

The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said. 

One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.

What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
 

Impact on patient care

That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.

If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion. 

More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most. 

You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them. 

Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.

The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice. 

“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.

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

Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.

Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health. 

The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time. 

“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.

The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death. 

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting. 

A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin. 

Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers. 

The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”  

Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
 

Limitations

Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.

“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.

The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said. 

One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.

What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
 

Impact on patient care

That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.

If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion. 

More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most. 

You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them. 

Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.

The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice. 

“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.

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

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches. Several recent controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the possibility of a cardioprotective and nephroprotective effect, even in patients without diabetes, especially with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D

What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?

These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.

Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
 

Real-world benefits – Even better when combined

The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:

All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).

Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).

Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).

A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).

This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches. Several recent controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the possibility of a cardioprotective and nephroprotective effect, even in patients without diabetes, especially with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D

What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?

These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.

Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
 

Real-world benefits – Even better when combined

The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:

All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).

Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).

Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).

A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).

This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches. Several recent controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the possibility of a cardioprotective and nephroprotective effect, even in patients without diabetes, especially with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D

What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?

These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.

Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
 

Real-world benefits – Even better when combined

The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:

All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).

Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).

Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).

A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).

This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.

This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.

When outcomes were compared across these related studies, the pharmacist referrals had a greater positive impact on statin prescriptions while also increasing the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.

The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.

The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates

The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.

Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.

In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.

In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.

During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).

In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
 

Visit-based study also randomized

In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,

More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.

For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.

For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).

In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,

The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.

Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
 

Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge

The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.

“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”

This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.

Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.

When outcomes were compared across these related studies, the pharmacist referrals had a greater positive impact on statin prescriptions while also increasing the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.

The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.

The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates

The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.

Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.

In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.

In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.

During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).

In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
 

Visit-based study also randomized

In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,

More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.

For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.

For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).

In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,

The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.

Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
 

Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge

The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.

“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”

This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.

Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.

When outcomes were compared across these related studies, the pharmacist referrals had a greater positive impact on statin prescriptions while also increasing the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.

The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.

The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates

The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.

Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.

In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.

In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.

During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).

In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
 

Visit-based study also randomized

In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,

More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.

For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.

For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).

In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,

The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.

Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
 

Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge

The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.

“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”

This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.

Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

People who followed a low-salt diet for just a week experienced a reduction in systolic blood pressure of about 6 mm Hg, in a new study.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.

“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.

“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”

Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.

Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.

“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.

The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.

“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”

For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.

As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.

Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.

The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.

“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.

He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.

For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
 

Large effect in people with diabetes

Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.

The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.

Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.

“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”

To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.

“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
 

Difficult to maintain long term

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.

He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”

“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”

Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”

He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
 

New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines

Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.

“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”

Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.

“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who followed a low-salt diet for just a week experienced a reduction in systolic blood pressure of about 6 mm Hg, in a new study.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.

“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.

“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”

Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.

Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.

“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.

The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.

“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”

For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.

As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.

Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.

The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.

“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.

He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.

For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
 

Large effect in people with diabetes

Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.

The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.

Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.

“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”

To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.

“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
 

Difficult to maintain long term

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.

He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”

“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”

Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”

He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
 

New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines

Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.

“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”

Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.

“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who followed a low-salt diet for just a week experienced a reduction in systolic blood pressure of about 6 mm Hg, in a new study.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.

“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.

“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”

Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.

Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.

“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.

The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.

“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”

For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.

As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.

Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.

The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.

“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.

He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.

For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
 

Large effect in people with diabetes

Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.

The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.

Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.

“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”

To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.

“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
 

Difficult to maintain long term

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.

He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”

“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”

Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”

He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
 

New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines

Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.

“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”

Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.

“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

Self-monitoring blood pressure during the early postpartum period may take advantage of a “critical window” when better BP monitoring could prevent later cardiovascular events in women who have hypertensive pregnancies, new research suggests.

In a randomized trial of 220 women with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, those who took daily postpartum BP readings and received clinician-guided advice for titrating antihypertensives had a 5 mm Hg–lower average diastolic BP at 9 months, compared with those receiving usual care.

Jamie Kitt, DPhil, from the University of Oxford (England) presented these findings from the Physicians Optimized Postpartum Hypertension Treatment (POP-HT, NCT04273854) clinical trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA, and a cardiac imaging substudy was published online in Circulation.

“This trial identifies a potential need for a paradigm shift in the way women affected by hypertensive pregnancy are managed postnatally,” Dr. Kitt said. “If a 5–mm Hg improvement in BP is maintained longer term, it can result in about a 20% reduction in lifetime cardiovascular risk.”

The imaging substudy suggests that short-term postnatal optimization of BP control following hypertensive pregnancy through self-monitoring and physician-guided antihypertensive titration is linked with better cardiac remodeling changes seen by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiography.

POP-HT “proves for the first time that the first few weeks after delivery are a critical time that can determine the long-term cardiovascular health of the mother,” senior author Paul Leeson, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, who presented the findings in a press briefing, said in an interview.

“Interventions during this period can have long-term beneficial impacts on cardiovascular health,” he said. “These findings rewrite the textbook on our understanding of how and why hypertensive pregnancies associate with later cardiovascular disease in the mother.”

Next, Dr. Leeson said, “We need to work out the best ways to implement these interventions “at scale. Then we can ensure all women who have hypertensive pregnancies can get access to the long-term cardiovascular benefits we have demonstrated are possible through improving postpartum cardiac care,” he said, adding that “this is entirely achievable using current available technologies.”
 

Hypertension in pregnancy

About 1 in 10 pregnant women develop hypertension in pregnancy (preeclampsia or gestational hypertension), and 1 in 3 such women go on to develop chronic hypertension within 10 years, “when they are usually still in their 30s or 40s,” Dr. Leeson said.

During pregnancy, the heart remodels to cope with pregnancy, and it undergoes more severe changes if BP is high. Then during the 6 weeks after giving birth, this remodeling rapidly reverses.

Higher blood pressure in young adulthood is associated with a twofold higher risk of subsequent myocardial infarction and stroke. And abnormal cardiac remodeling postpartum is also linked with higher cardiovascular risk.

Self-monitoring blood pressure during the postpartum period may be a “critical window” for intervention.

Previously, the research group performed a pilot study, the Self-Management of Postnatal Antihypertensive Treatment (SNAP-HT) trial and the SNAP-extension trial, which compared a BP self-monitoring intervention with usual care in 91 women with gestational hypertension or preeclampsia requiring postnatal antihypertensive treatment.

Diastolic BP, which drives cardiovascular risk in younger populations, was 4.5–mm Hg lower at 6 months postpartum and 7–mm Hg lower at 4 years post partum in patients randomly assigned to BP self-management vs. usual care – even after they were no longer taking antihypertensives.

Building on these findings, the POP-HT trial enrolled 220 pregnant women seen at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom who were age 18 years or older, had either gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and still required antihypertensives when they were being discharged from hospital after giving birth.

Following a baseline visit at day 1-6 after delivery, while in the postnatal ward, the patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention group (112 women) or usual-care group (108 women).

They had an average age of 32.6 years; 40% had gestational hypertension, and 60% had preeclampsia.

Women in the usual-care group typically received a BP review at 7-10 days after hospital discharge with a community midwife, and another at 6-8 weeks with their general practitioner.

The women in the intervention group were given and taught to use a Bluetooth-enabled OMRON Evolv BP monitor (Omron Healthcare Europe) while on the postnatal ward, and they installed a smartphone app on their mobile phones that transmitted self-monitored BP readings to a National Health Service-hosted, web-based platform.

They were instructed to take daily BP measurements (twice daily if out of target range). Dose titration of antihypertensives after hospital discharge was guided remotely by research clinicians, according to a guideline-based algorithm.

Patients in both groups had four study visits when their BP was measured: visit 1 (baseline) between days 1 and 6 post partum; visit 2 at week 1; visit 3 at week 6; and visit 4 between months 6 and 9 post partum.

Similar antihypertensive classes were prescribed in each group (enalapril 57%, nifedipine 27%, and labetalol 30% for intervention vs. enalapril 43%, nifedipine 30%, and labetalol 27% for control).

At 6 weeks, approximately 30% of participants in each group were still taking medication; this dropped to approximately 12% by visit 4.

The primary outcome – the mean 24-hour diastolic BP at visit 4 (roughly 9 months post partum), adjusted for baseline postnatal diastolic blood pressure – was 5.8–mm Hg lower in the intervention group than in the control group (71.2 mm Hg vs. 76.6 mm Hg; P < .001).

Secondary outcomes – between-group differences in systolic BP at 9 months, BP-related postnatal admission, and cardiac remodeling assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance – were all better in the intervention group.

The mean 24-hour average systolic BP at 9 months post partum, adjusted for baseline postnatal systolic BP was 6.5–mm Hg lower in the intervention group than in the control group (114.0 mm Hg vs. 120.3 mm Hg; P < .001).

There was an absolute risk reduction of 20% and a relative risk reduction of 73.5% in postnatal readmission. The number needed to treat to avoid one postnatal readmission was five, which “has potential for big cost savings,” said Dr. Leeson.

Blood pressure post partum can be improved with self-monitoring and physician-guided medication adjustment, Dr. Leeson summarized. The blood pressure remains low for at least 9 months, even when medication is stopped, and the intervention leads to beneficial cardiac remodeling.
 

U.S. pilot study

Non-Hispanic Black adults have a high hypertension and cardiovascular disease burden, and a related small U.S. study showed benefits of BP self-monitoring in a population comprising mainly Black women, Keith Ferdinand, MD, discussant of the POP-HT trial in the press briefing, said in an interview.

Dr. Ferdinand, from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, was lead author of the Text My Hypertension BP Meds NOLA pilot study that was published in February in the American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice.

The study showed that text-messaging and social support increased hypertension medication adherence.

They enrolled 36 individuals, of whom 32 (89%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 23 (64%) were women. The participants received validated Bluetooth-enabled BP-monitoring devices that were synced to smartphones via a secured cloud-based application. The participants could send and receive messages to health care practitioners.

This intervention significantly improved medication adherence and systolic BP without modifying pharmacotherapy.
 

‘Need to be passionate about monitoring BP’

“The take-home messages from these exciting findings is that physicians and women who have had high BP during pregnancy need to be passionate about monitoring and controlling their blood pressure and not ignore it,” Anastasia Mihailidou, PhD, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, the assigned discussant in the late-breaking trial session, said in an interview.

“It also resulted in fewer postpartum hospital readmissions for high blood pressure and benefit at 9 months in the structure and function of the heart and blood vessels of the women,” she said.

“While we need to see further studies in ethnically diverse women to see that they are reproducible, there are simple measures that clinicians can implement, and women can ask to have their BP monitored more frequently than the current practice. In the U.K. it is 5-10 days after delivery and then at 6-8 weeks after giving birth when changes in heart structure have already started,” Dr. Mihailidou noted.

“The procedure will need to be modified if there are no telemedicine facilities, but that should not stop having close monitoring of BP and treating it adequately. Monitoring requires an accurate BP monitor. There also has to be monitoring BP for the children.”

The trial was funded by a BHF Clinical Research Training Fellowship to Dr. Kitt, with additional support from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and Oxford BHF Centre for Research Excellence.

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

Self-monitoring blood pressure during the early postpartum period may take advantage of a “critical window” when better BP monitoring could prevent later cardiovascular events in women who have hypertensive pregnancies, new research suggests.

In a randomized trial of 220 women with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, those who took daily postpartum BP readings and received clinician-guided advice for titrating antihypertensives had a 5 mm Hg–lower average diastolic BP at 9 months, compared with those receiving usual care.

Jamie Kitt, DPhil, from the University of Oxford (England) presented these findings from the Physicians Optimized Postpartum Hypertension Treatment (POP-HT, NCT04273854) clinical trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA, and a cardiac imaging substudy was published online in Circulation.

“This trial identifies a potential need for a paradigm shift in the way women affected by hypertensive pregnancy are managed postnatally,” Dr. Kitt said. “If a 5–mm Hg improvement in BP is maintained longer term, it can result in about a 20% reduction in lifetime cardiovascular risk.”

The imaging substudy suggests that short-term postnatal optimization of BP control following hypertensive pregnancy through self-monitoring and physician-guided antihypertensive titration is linked with better cardiac remodeling changes seen by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiography.

POP-HT “proves for the first time that the first few weeks after delivery are a critical time that can determine the long-term cardiovascular health of the mother,” senior author Paul Leeson, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, who presented the findings in a press briefing, said in an interview.

“Interventions during this period can have long-term beneficial impacts on cardiovascular health,” he said. “These findings rewrite the textbook on our understanding of how and why hypertensive pregnancies associate with later cardiovascular disease in the mother.”

Next, Dr. Leeson said, “We need to work out the best ways to implement these interventions “at scale. Then we can ensure all women who have hypertensive pregnancies can get access to the long-term cardiovascular benefits we have demonstrated are possible through improving postpartum cardiac care,” he said, adding that “this is entirely achievable using current available technologies.”
 

Hypertension in pregnancy

About 1 in 10 pregnant women develop hypertension in pregnancy (preeclampsia or gestational hypertension), and 1 in 3 such women go on to develop chronic hypertension within 10 years, “when they are usually still in their 30s or 40s,” Dr. Leeson said.

During pregnancy, the heart remodels to cope with pregnancy, and it undergoes more severe changes if BP is high. Then during the 6 weeks after giving birth, this remodeling rapidly reverses.

Higher blood pressure in young adulthood is associated with a twofold higher risk of subsequent myocardial infarction and stroke. And abnormal cardiac remodeling postpartum is also linked with higher cardiovascular risk.

Self-monitoring blood pressure during the postpartum period may be a “critical window” for intervention.

Previously, the research group performed a pilot study, the Self-Management of Postnatal Antihypertensive Treatment (SNAP-HT) trial and the SNAP-extension trial, which compared a BP self-monitoring intervention with usual care in 91 women with gestational hypertension or preeclampsia requiring postnatal antihypertensive treatment.

Diastolic BP, which drives cardiovascular risk in younger populations, was 4.5–mm Hg lower at 6 months postpartum and 7–mm Hg lower at 4 years post partum in patients randomly assigned to BP self-management vs. usual care – even after they were no longer taking antihypertensives.

Building on these findings, the POP-HT trial enrolled 220 pregnant women seen at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom who were age 18 years or older, had either gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and still required antihypertensives when they were being discharged from hospital after giving birth.

Following a baseline visit at day 1-6 after delivery, while in the postnatal ward, the patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention group (112 women) or usual-care group (108 women).

They had an average age of 32.6 years; 40% had gestational hypertension, and 60% had preeclampsia.

Women in the usual-care group typically received a BP review at 7-10 days after hospital discharge with a community midwife, and another at 6-8 weeks with their general practitioner.

The women in the intervention group were given and taught to use a Bluetooth-enabled OMRON Evolv BP monitor (Omron Healthcare Europe) while on the postnatal ward, and they installed a smartphone app on their mobile phones that transmitted self-monitored BP readings to a National Health Service-hosted, web-based platform.

They were instructed to take daily BP measurements (twice daily if out of target range). Dose titration of antihypertensives after hospital discharge was guided remotely by research clinicians, according to a guideline-based algorithm.

Patients in both groups had four study visits when their BP was measured: visit 1 (baseline) between days 1 and 6 post partum; visit 2 at week 1; visit 3 at week 6; and visit 4 between months 6 and 9 post partum.

Similar antihypertensive classes were prescribed in each group (enalapril 57%, nifedipine 27%, and labetalol 30% for intervention vs. enalapril 43%, nifedipine 30%, and labetalol 27% for control).

At 6 weeks, approximately 30% of participants in each group were still taking medication; this dropped to approximately 12% by visit 4.

The primary outcome – the mean 24-hour diastolic BP at visit 4 (roughly 9 months post partum), adjusted for baseline postnatal diastolic blood pressure – was 5.8–mm Hg lower in the intervention group than in the control group (71.2 mm Hg vs. 76.6 mm Hg; P < .001).

Secondary outcomes – between-group differences in systolic BP at 9 months, BP-related postnatal admission, and cardiac remodeling assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance – were all better in the intervention group.

The mean 24-hour average systolic BP at 9 months post partum, adjusted for baseline postnatal systolic BP was 6.5–mm Hg lower in the intervention group than in the control group (114.0 mm Hg vs. 120.3 mm Hg; P < .001).

There was an absolute risk reduction of 20% and a relative risk reduction of 73.5% in postnatal readmission. The number needed to treat to avoid one postnatal readmission was five, which “has potential for big cost savings,” said Dr. Leeson.

Blood pressure post partum can be improved with self-monitoring and physician-guided medication adjustment, Dr. Leeson summarized. The blood pressure remains low for at least 9 months, even when medication is stopped, and the intervention leads to beneficial cardiac remodeling.
 

U.S. pilot study

Non-Hispanic Black adults have a high hypertension and cardiovascular disease burden, and a related small U.S. study showed benefits of BP self-monitoring in a population comprising mainly Black women, Keith Ferdinand, MD, discussant of the POP-HT trial in the press briefing, said in an interview.

Dr. Ferdinand, from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, was lead author of the Text My Hypertension BP Meds NOLA pilot study that was published in February in the American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice.

The study showed that text-messaging and social support increased hypertension medication adherence.

They enrolled 36 individuals, of whom 32 (89%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 23 (64%) were women. The participants received validated Bluetooth-enabled BP-monitoring devices that were synced to smartphones via a secured cloud-based application. The participants could send and receive messages to health care practitioners.

This intervention significantly improved medication adherence and systolic BP without modifying pharmacotherapy.
 

‘Need to be passionate about monitoring BP’

“The take-home messages from these exciting findings is that physicians and women who have had high BP during pregnancy need to be passionate about monitoring and controlling their blood pressure and not ignore it,” Anastasia Mihailidou, PhD, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, the assigned discussant in the late-breaking trial session, said in an interview.

“It also resulted in fewer postpartum hospital readmissions for high blood pressure and benefit at 9 months in the structure and function of the heart and blood vessels of the women,” she said.

“While we need to see further studies in ethnically diverse women to see that they are reproducible, there are simple measures that clinicians can implement, and women can ask to have their BP monitored more frequently than the current practice. In the U.K. it is 5-10 days after delivery and then at 6-8 weeks after giving birth when changes in heart structure have already started,” Dr. Mihailidou noted.

“The procedure will need to be modified if there are no telemedicine facilities, but that should not stop having close monitoring of BP and treating it adequately. Monitoring requires an accurate BP monitor. There also has to be monitoring BP for the children.”

The trial was funded by a BHF Clinical Research Training Fellowship to Dr. Kitt, with additional support from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and Oxford BHF Centre for Research Excellence.

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

Self-monitoring blood pressure during the early postpartum period may take advantage of a “critical window” when better BP monitoring could prevent later cardiovascular events in women who have hypertensive pregnancies, new research suggests.

In a randomized trial of 220 women with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, those who took daily postpartum BP readings and received clinician-guided advice for titrating antihypertensives had a 5 mm Hg–lower average diastolic BP at 9 months, compared with those receiving usual care.

Jamie Kitt, DPhil, from the University of Oxford (England) presented these findings from the Physicians Optimized Postpartum Hypertension Treatment (POP-HT, NCT04273854) clinical trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA, and a cardiac imaging substudy was published online in Circulation.

“This trial identifies a potential need for a paradigm shift in the way women affected by hypertensive pregnancy are managed postnatally,” Dr. Kitt said. “If a 5–mm Hg improvement in BP is maintained longer term, it can result in about a 20% reduction in lifetime cardiovascular risk.”

The imaging substudy suggests that short-term postnatal optimization of BP control following hypertensive pregnancy through self-monitoring and physician-guided antihypertensive titration is linked with better cardiac remodeling changes seen by cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiography.

POP-HT “proves for the first time that the first few weeks after delivery are a critical time that can determine the long-term cardiovascular health of the mother,” senior author Paul Leeson, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, who presented the findings in a press briefing, said in an interview.

“Interventions during this period can have long-term beneficial impacts on cardiovascular health,” he said. “These findings rewrite the textbook on our understanding of how and why hypertensive pregnancies associate with later cardiovascular disease in the mother.”

Next, Dr. Leeson said, “We need to work out the best ways to implement these interventions “at scale. Then we can ensure all women who have hypertensive pregnancies can get access to the long-term cardiovascular benefits we have demonstrated are possible through improving postpartum cardiac care,” he said, adding that “this is entirely achievable using current available technologies.”
 

Hypertension in pregnancy

About 1 in 10 pregnant women develop hypertension in pregnancy (preeclampsia or gestational hypertension), and 1 in 3 such women go on to develop chronic hypertension within 10 years, “when they are usually still in their 30s or 40s,” Dr. Leeson said.

During pregnancy, the heart remodels to cope with pregnancy, and it undergoes more severe changes if BP is high. Then during the 6 weeks after giving birth, this remodeling rapidly reverses.

Higher blood pressure in young adulthood is associated with a twofold higher risk of subsequent myocardial infarction and stroke. And abnormal cardiac remodeling postpartum is also linked with higher cardiovascular risk.

Self-monitoring blood pressure during the postpartum period may be a “critical window” for intervention.

Previously, the research group performed a pilot study, the Self-Management of Postnatal Antihypertensive Treatment (SNAP-HT) trial and the SNAP-extension trial, which compared a BP self-monitoring intervention with usual care in 91 women with gestational hypertension or preeclampsia requiring postnatal antihypertensive treatment.

Diastolic BP, which drives cardiovascular risk in younger populations, was 4.5–mm Hg lower at 6 months postpartum and 7–mm Hg lower at 4 years post partum in patients randomly assigned to BP self-management vs. usual care – even after they were no longer taking antihypertensives.

Building on these findings, the POP-HT trial enrolled 220 pregnant women seen at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom who were age 18 years or older, had either gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and still required antihypertensives when they were being discharged from hospital after giving birth.

Following a baseline visit at day 1-6 after delivery, while in the postnatal ward, the patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention group (112 women) or usual-care group (108 women).

They had an average age of 32.6 years; 40% had gestational hypertension, and 60% had preeclampsia.

Women in the usual-care group typically received a BP review at 7-10 days after hospital discharge with a community midwife, and another at 6-8 weeks with their general practitioner.

The women in the intervention group were given and taught to use a Bluetooth-enabled OMRON Evolv BP monitor (Omron Healthcare Europe) while on the postnatal ward, and they installed a smartphone app on their mobile phones that transmitted self-monitored BP readings to a National Health Service-hosted, web-based platform.

They were instructed to take daily BP measurements (twice daily if out of target range). Dose titration of antihypertensives after hospital discharge was guided remotely by research clinicians, according to a guideline-based algorithm.

Patients in both groups had four study visits when their BP was measured: visit 1 (baseline) between days 1 and 6 post partum; visit 2 at week 1; visit 3 at week 6; and visit 4 between months 6 and 9 post partum.

Similar antihypertensive classes were prescribed in each group (enalapril 57%, nifedipine 27%, and labetalol 30% for intervention vs. enalapril 43%, nifedipine 30%, and labetalol 27% for control).

At 6 weeks, approximately 30% of participants in each group were still taking medication; this dropped to approximately 12% by visit 4.

The primary outcome – the mean 24-hour diastolic BP at visit 4 (roughly 9 months post partum), adjusted for baseline postnatal diastolic blood pressure – was 5.8–mm Hg lower in the intervention group than in the control group (71.2 mm Hg vs. 76.6 mm Hg; P < .001).

Secondary outcomes – between-group differences in systolic BP at 9 months, BP-related postnatal admission, and cardiac remodeling assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance – were all better in the intervention group.

The mean 24-hour average systolic BP at 9 months post partum, adjusted for baseline postnatal systolic BP was 6.5–mm Hg lower in the intervention group than in the control group (114.0 mm Hg vs. 120.3 mm Hg; P < .001).

There was an absolute risk reduction of 20% and a relative risk reduction of 73.5% in postnatal readmission. The number needed to treat to avoid one postnatal readmission was five, which “has potential for big cost savings,” said Dr. Leeson.

Blood pressure post partum can be improved with self-monitoring and physician-guided medication adjustment, Dr. Leeson summarized. The blood pressure remains low for at least 9 months, even when medication is stopped, and the intervention leads to beneficial cardiac remodeling.
 

U.S. pilot study

Non-Hispanic Black adults have a high hypertension and cardiovascular disease burden, and a related small U.S. study showed benefits of BP self-monitoring in a population comprising mainly Black women, Keith Ferdinand, MD, discussant of the POP-HT trial in the press briefing, said in an interview.

Dr. Ferdinand, from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, was lead author of the Text My Hypertension BP Meds NOLA pilot study that was published in February in the American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice.

The study showed that text-messaging and social support increased hypertension medication adherence.

They enrolled 36 individuals, of whom 32 (89%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 23 (64%) were women. The participants received validated Bluetooth-enabled BP-monitoring devices that were synced to smartphones via a secured cloud-based application. The participants could send and receive messages to health care practitioners.

This intervention significantly improved medication adherence and systolic BP without modifying pharmacotherapy.
 

‘Need to be passionate about monitoring BP’

“The take-home messages from these exciting findings is that physicians and women who have had high BP during pregnancy need to be passionate about monitoring and controlling their blood pressure and not ignore it,” Anastasia Mihailidou, PhD, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, the assigned discussant in the late-breaking trial session, said in an interview.

“It also resulted in fewer postpartum hospital readmissions for high blood pressure and benefit at 9 months in the structure and function of the heart and blood vessels of the women,” she said.

“While we need to see further studies in ethnically diverse women to see that they are reproducible, there are simple measures that clinicians can implement, and women can ask to have their BP monitored more frequently than the current practice. In the U.K. it is 5-10 days after delivery and then at 6-8 weeks after giving birth when changes in heart structure have already started,” Dr. Mihailidou noted.

“The procedure will need to be modified if there are no telemedicine facilities, but that should not stop having close monitoring of BP and treating it adequately. Monitoring requires an accurate BP monitor. There also has to be monitoring BP for the children.”

The trial was funded by a BHF Clinical Research Training Fellowship to Dr. Kitt, with additional support from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and Oxford BHF Centre for Research Excellence.

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

In patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation (AFib) detected by implanted devices such as pacemakers or loop recorders, oral anticoagulation with apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin, but a higher risk of major bleeding in the ARTESIA study.

The results appear to contrast somewhat with the recently reported NOAH-AFNET 6 trial, which failed to show a reduction in stroke with the anticoagulant edoxaban versus placebo in a similar patient group, but that trial was stopped early and so was underpowered.

However, the lead investigators of both trials say the studies actually show consistent results – both found a lower rate of stroke than expected in this population, but the confidence intervals for stroke reduction with anticoagulation overlap, suggesting there is likely some effect, albeit less than that in clinical AFib.

The big question is whether the reduction in stroke with anticoagulation outweighs the increase in major bleeding.

A new meta-analysis of the two trials showed that “oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of ischemic stroke by approximately one-third and increases major bleeding by roughly double.”

In absolute numbers, there were three fewer ischemic strokes per 1,000 patient-years with anticoagulation in the two trials combined, at the cost of seven more major bleeds.

The lead investigators of the two trials have somewhat different opinions on how these findings may translate into clinical practice.

Jeff Healey, MD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, believes that the risks and benefits need to be assessed in individual patients, but there should be some patient groups that will benefit from anticoagulation treatment.

“In patients with pacemakers or implantable loop recorders with continuous monitoring, subclinical AF[ib] is detected in about one third of patients, so this is extremely common,” he said in an interview. “The question is whether this is just a normal feature of getting older or is this like AF[ib] that we see in the clinic which increases stroke risk, and I think we can conclude from ARTESIA that this subclinical AF[ib] is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although that is lower than the risk with clinical AF[ib], and that it can be reduced by anticoagulation.”

Until recently it hasn’t been possible to quantify the risk associated with subclinical AFib, he noted. “But now we have a rich dataset to use to see if we can tease out some specifics on this. Future analyses of this dataset will help define patients where the benefits outweigh the risks of bleeding. For now, I think we can look at the data in a qualitative way and consider the totality of risk factors in each patient – their bleeding risk, stroke risk, how much AF[ib] they have, and make a decision as to whether to give anticoagulation or not.”

But Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), lead investigator of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial said: “Both trials showed the stroke rate is low in these patients – about 1% per year – and that anticoagulation can reduce it a bit further at the expense of increasing major bleeding. I don’t believe the AF[ib] episodes picked up on these devices constitute a sufficient stroke risk to warrant anticoagulation, given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Kirchhof suggests an alternate approach of performing further traditional AFib monitoring on these patients.

“I think going forward in my practice, when we come across this device-detected AF[ib], we will do further investigations with an established method for detecting AF[ib] involving surface ECG monitoring – maybe a 3-day or 7-day Holter. If that shows AF[ib], then we will be on firm ground to start anticoagulation. If that doesn’t show AF[ib], we will probably not use anticoagulation.”

The ARTESIA trial and the meta-analysis of the two trials were both presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Both studies were also simultaneously published online – ARTESIA in the New England Journal of Medicine and the meta-analysis in Circulation.
 

ARTESIA

For the ARTESIA study, 4012 patients with device-detected AFib and other clinical risk factors for stroke were randomly assigned to treatment with apixaban (5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 mg daily).

After a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary endpoint – stroke or systemic embolism – occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year), compared with 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year), giving a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.88; P = .007).

“The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower by 37% with apixaban than with aspirin, and the risk of disabling or fatal stroke was lower by 49%,” Dr. Healey reported.

In the “on-treatment” population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26-2.57; P = .001).

Fatal bleeding occurred in five patients in the apixaban group and eight patients in the aspirin group. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 12 patients with apixaban and 15 patients with aspirin.

One of the main findings of the trial is the lower-than-expected risk of ischemic stroke in this population – about 1% per year in the aspirin group, which was reduced to 0.64% per year in the apixaban group.

The authors noted that “simply counting strokes as compared with bleeding events might suggest a neutral overall effect. With apixaban as compared with aspirin, 31 fewer cases of stroke or systemic embolism were seen in the intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with 39 more major bleeding events in the on-treatment analysis.”

However, they pointed out that strokes involve permanent loss of brain tissue, whereas major bleeding is usually reversible, with most patients having complete recovery, which was the case in this study.

“Thus, on the basis of the considerably greater severity of the stroke events prevented than the bleeding events caused, we believe that these findings favor consideration of the use of oral anticoagulation for patients with risk factors for stroke in whom subclinical atrial fibrillation develops,” they concluded.
 

First well-powered trial addressing this question

Discussing the ARTESIA trial at an AHA press conference, Christine Albert, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said: “I want to emphasize how important this trial is.”

She explained that current guidelines do not recommend any treatment for patients with device-detected AFib that is not shown on ECG, even though it is known this confers some excess risk of stroke.

“ARTESIA is the first well-powered, long-term trial looking at this question,” she said. “It found a clear reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism with apixaban vs aspirin, but there was also a significant amount of bleeding – about an 80% increase. The question is whether the benefit on stroke is worth it given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Albert highlighted the low absolute risk of stroke in this study population of around 1.2%, pointing out that even with the 37% relative reduction with anticoagulation, stroke is only reduced in absolute terms by 0.4%.

“We are going to have to take this back to committees and guidelines and look at the balance between the benefit on stroke and the increase in bleeding,” she concluded.

Noting that observational studies have shown that the duration of AFib impacts the risk of stroke, Dr. Albert suggested that patients with longer-duration AFib may benefit from anticoagulation to a greater extent; and given that the bleeding seen in ARTESIA was mainly GI bleeding, it might be possible to screen out patients at high risk of GI bleeding.

She also pointed out that a lot of patients discontinued anticoagulation treatment in both ARTESIA and NOAH-AFNET 6, showing that this is not an easy strategy for elderly patients.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the ARTESIA trial, Emma Svennberg, MD, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also concluded that, “going forward, we must balance the increased bleeding risks with the risk for disabling strokes,” and that “future substudies and meta-analyses may provide further insights regarding treatment benefits in specific subgroups.”
 

NOAH-AFNET 6: New subgroup analysis

The previously reported NOAH-AFNET 6 study randomly assigned 2,538 patients with subclinical AFib and additional risk factors for stroke to anticoagulation with edoxaban or placebo. The trial was stopped early, so it was underpowered – but it found no difference between groups in the incidence of the composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes or in the incidence of stroke, although there was higher risk of major bleeding.

Again, there was a low rate of stroke in this trial with just 49 strokes in total in the whole study. The NOAH-AFNET-6 investigators concluded that these patients should not receive anticoagulation because the risk of bleeding outweighed any potential benefits.

A new subanalysis of the 259 patients who had durations of subclinical AFib of 24 hours or longer in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was presented at the AHA meeting, and simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

This showed that the rate of stroke also appeared low in patients with these long durations of subclinical AFib, and that there was no interaction between the duration of subclinical AFib and the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulation.

But with such a low number of events in the study as a whole and in the long duration subclinical AFib subgroup (in which there were just two strokes in each treatment group), this analysis was unlikely to show a difference, Dr. Kirchhof commented.

The subgroup analysis did, however, show that patients experiencing subclinical AFib durations of 24 hours or more were more likely to develop clinical AFib over time than those with shorter durations, suggesting the need for regular ECGs in these patients.

Dr. Kirchhof said better methods are needed to detect patients with subclinical AFib at high risk of stroke. “I don’t think our clinical stroke risk factor scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc are sufficient to detect high-risk patients. Patients in both NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESIA had a median CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4, but they had a stroke rate of just 1% per year,” he noted.

The meta-analysis of the two trials showed that the results from both are consistent, with an overall reduction in ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulation (relative risk, 0.68). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85).

There was no significant difference in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08), but anticoagulation significantly increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62).
 

Aspirin use complicates results

Dr. Healey said further analyses of the ARTESIA data will try to tease out the effect of concomitant aspirin use in the trial.

He explained that patients in this trial were allowed to take a single antiplatelet agent on top of study therapy.

“It is difficult to work out the exact use of antiplatelet therapy as it changed throughout the study,” he said. “About two-thirds were taking antiplatelet agents at the time of enrollment into the trial, but this decreased throughout the study. Many clinicians stopped open-label antiplatelet therapy during the trial when new evidence came out to suggest that there was no added benefit of adding aspirin on top of anticoagulants.

“We need to look carefully as to what impact that may have had,” Dr. Healey added. “We know from other studies that adding an antiplatelet on top of an anticoagulant doesn’t do much to thromboembolic events, but it approximately doubles the risk of major bleeding.”

In contrast, the NOAH-AFNET trial did not allow aspirin use in the anticoagulation group and aspirin was taken by around half the patients in the placebo group who had an indication for its use.

The authors of the meta-analysis pointed out that the omission of aspirin in nearly half of the control patients in NOAH-AFNET 6 and the early termination of the trial may have led to a slightly higher estimate for excess major bleeding with anticoagulation.

The ARTESIA study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Prevention Intervention Network, Hamilton Health Sciences, the Advancing Clinical Trials Network and the Population Health Research Institute. Dr. Healey reported research grants and speaking fees from BMS/Pfizer Alliance, Servier, Novartis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic; and acts as a consultant to Bayer, Servier and Boston Scientific. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

In patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation (AFib) detected by implanted devices such as pacemakers or loop recorders, oral anticoagulation with apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin, but a higher risk of major bleeding in the ARTESIA study.

The results appear to contrast somewhat with the recently reported NOAH-AFNET 6 trial, which failed to show a reduction in stroke with the anticoagulant edoxaban versus placebo in a similar patient group, but that trial was stopped early and so was underpowered.

However, the lead investigators of both trials say the studies actually show consistent results – both found a lower rate of stroke than expected in this population, but the confidence intervals for stroke reduction with anticoagulation overlap, suggesting there is likely some effect, albeit less than that in clinical AFib.

The big question is whether the reduction in stroke with anticoagulation outweighs the increase in major bleeding.

A new meta-analysis of the two trials showed that “oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of ischemic stroke by approximately one-third and increases major bleeding by roughly double.”

In absolute numbers, there were three fewer ischemic strokes per 1,000 patient-years with anticoagulation in the two trials combined, at the cost of seven more major bleeds.

The lead investigators of the two trials have somewhat different opinions on how these findings may translate into clinical practice.

Jeff Healey, MD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, believes that the risks and benefits need to be assessed in individual patients, but there should be some patient groups that will benefit from anticoagulation treatment.

“In patients with pacemakers or implantable loop recorders with continuous monitoring, subclinical AF[ib] is detected in about one third of patients, so this is extremely common,” he said in an interview. “The question is whether this is just a normal feature of getting older or is this like AF[ib] that we see in the clinic which increases stroke risk, and I think we can conclude from ARTESIA that this subclinical AF[ib] is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although that is lower than the risk with clinical AF[ib], and that it can be reduced by anticoagulation.”

Until recently it hasn’t been possible to quantify the risk associated with subclinical AFib, he noted. “But now we have a rich dataset to use to see if we can tease out some specifics on this. Future analyses of this dataset will help define patients where the benefits outweigh the risks of bleeding. For now, I think we can look at the data in a qualitative way and consider the totality of risk factors in each patient – their bleeding risk, stroke risk, how much AF[ib] they have, and make a decision as to whether to give anticoagulation or not.”

But Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), lead investigator of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial said: “Both trials showed the stroke rate is low in these patients – about 1% per year – and that anticoagulation can reduce it a bit further at the expense of increasing major bleeding. I don’t believe the AF[ib] episodes picked up on these devices constitute a sufficient stroke risk to warrant anticoagulation, given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Kirchhof suggests an alternate approach of performing further traditional AFib monitoring on these patients.

“I think going forward in my practice, when we come across this device-detected AF[ib], we will do further investigations with an established method for detecting AF[ib] involving surface ECG monitoring – maybe a 3-day or 7-day Holter. If that shows AF[ib], then we will be on firm ground to start anticoagulation. If that doesn’t show AF[ib], we will probably not use anticoagulation.”

The ARTESIA trial and the meta-analysis of the two trials were both presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Both studies were also simultaneously published online – ARTESIA in the New England Journal of Medicine and the meta-analysis in Circulation.
 

ARTESIA

For the ARTESIA study, 4012 patients with device-detected AFib and other clinical risk factors for stroke were randomly assigned to treatment with apixaban (5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 mg daily).

After a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary endpoint – stroke or systemic embolism – occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year), compared with 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year), giving a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.88; P = .007).

“The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower by 37% with apixaban than with aspirin, and the risk of disabling or fatal stroke was lower by 49%,” Dr. Healey reported.

In the “on-treatment” population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26-2.57; P = .001).

Fatal bleeding occurred in five patients in the apixaban group and eight patients in the aspirin group. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 12 patients with apixaban and 15 patients with aspirin.

One of the main findings of the trial is the lower-than-expected risk of ischemic stroke in this population – about 1% per year in the aspirin group, which was reduced to 0.64% per year in the apixaban group.

The authors noted that “simply counting strokes as compared with bleeding events might suggest a neutral overall effect. With apixaban as compared with aspirin, 31 fewer cases of stroke or systemic embolism were seen in the intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with 39 more major bleeding events in the on-treatment analysis.”

However, they pointed out that strokes involve permanent loss of brain tissue, whereas major bleeding is usually reversible, with most patients having complete recovery, which was the case in this study.

“Thus, on the basis of the considerably greater severity of the stroke events prevented than the bleeding events caused, we believe that these findings favor consideration of the use of oral anticoagulation for patients with risk factors for stroke in whom subclinical atrial fibrillation develops,” they concluded.
 

First well-powered trial addressing this question

Discussing the ARTESIA trial at an AHA press conference, Christine Albert, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said: “I want to emphasize how important this trial is.”

She explained that current guidelines do not recommend any treatment for patients with device-detected AFib that is not shown on ECG, even though it is known this confers some excess risk of stroke.

“ARTESIA is the first well-powered, long-term trial looking at this question,” she said. “It found a clear reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism with apixaban vs aspirin, but there was also a significant amount of bleeding – about an 80% increase. The question is whether the benefit on stroke is worth it given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Albert highlighted the low absolute risk of stroke in this study population of around 1.2%, pointing out that even with the 37% relative reduction with anticoagulation, stroke is only reduced in absolute terms by 0.4%.

“We are going to have to take this back to committees and guidelines and look at the balance between the benefit on stroke and the increase in bleeding,” she concluded.

Noting that observational studies have shown that the duration of AFib impacts the risk of stroke, Dr. Albert suggested that patients with longer-duration AFib may benefit from anticoagulation to a greater extent; and given that the bleeding seen in ARTESIA was mainly GI bleeding, it might be possible to screen out patients at high risk of GI bleeding.

She also pointed out that a lot of patients discontinued anticoagulation treatment in both ARTESIA and NOAH-AFNET 6, showing that this is not an easy strategy for elderly patients.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the ARTESIA trial, Emma Svennberg, MD, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also concluded that, “going forward, we must balance the increased bleeding risks with the risk for disabling strokes,” and that “future substudies and meta-analyses may provide further insights regarding treatment benefits in specific subgroups.”
 

NOAH-AFNET 6: New subgroup analysis

The previously reported NOAH-AFNET 6 study randomly assigned 2,538 patients with subclinical AFib and additional risk factors for stroke to anticoagulation with edoxaban or placebo. The trial was stopped early, so it was underpowered – but it found no difference between groups in the incidence of the composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes or in the incidence of stroke, although there was higher risk of major bleeding.

Again, there was a low rate of stroke in this trial with just 49 strokes in total in the whole study. The NOAH-AFNET-6 investigators concluded that these patients should not receive anticoagulation because the risk of bleeding outweighed any potential benefits.

A new subanalysis of the 259 patients who had durations of subclinical AFib of 24 hours or longer in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was presented at the AHA meeting, and simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

This showed that the rate of stroke also appeared low in patients with these long durations of subclinical AFib, and that there was no interaction between the duration of subclinical AFib and the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulation.

But with such a low number of events in the study as a whole and in the long duration subclinical AFib subgroup (in which there were just two strokes in each treatment group), this analysis was unlikely to show a difference, Dr. Kirchhof commented.

The subgroup analysis did, however, show that patients experiencing subclinical AFib durations of 24 hours or more were more likely to develop clinical AFib over time than those with shorter durations, suggesting the need for regular ECGs in these patients.

Dr. Kirchhof said better methods are needed to detect patients with subclinical AFib at high risk of stroke. “I don’t think our clinical stroke risk factor scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc are sufficient to detect high-risk patients. Patients in both NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESIA had a median CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4, but they had a stroke rate of just 1% per year,” he noted.

The meta-analysis of the two trials showed that the results from both are consistent, with an overall reduction in ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulation (relative risk, 0.68). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85).

There was no significant difference in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08), but anticoagulation significantly increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62).
 

Aspirin use complicates results

Dr. Healey said further analyses of the ARTESIA data will try to tease out the effect of concomitant aspirin use in the trial.

He explained that patients in this trial were allowed to take a single antiplatelet agent on top of study therapy.

“It is difficult to work out the exact use of antiplatelet therapy as it changed throughout the study,” he said. “About two-thirds were taking antiplatelet agents at the time of enrollment into the trial, but this decreased throughout the study. Many clinicians stopped open-label antiplatelet therapy during the trial when new evidence came out to suggest that there was no added benefit of adding aspirin on top of anticoagulants.

“We need to look carefully as to what impact that may have had,” Dr. Healey added. “We know from other studies that adding an antiplatelet on top of an anticoagulant doesn’t do much to thromboembolic events, but it approximately doubles the risk of major bleeding.”

In contrast, the NOAH-AFNET trial did not allow aspirin use in the anticoagulation group and aspirin was taken by around half the patients in the placebo group who had an indication for its use.

The authors of the meta-analysis pointed out that the omission of aspirin in nearly half of the control patients in NOAH-AFNET 6 and the early termination of the trial may have led to a slightly higher estimate for excess major bleeding with anticoagulation.

The ARTESIA study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Prevention Intervention Network, Hamilton Health Sciences, the Advancing Clinical Trials Network and the Population Health Research Institute. Dr. Healey reported research grants and speaking fees from BMS/Pfizer Alliance, Servier, Novartis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic; and acts as a consultant to Bayer, Servier and Boston Scientific. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

In patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation (AFib) detected by implanted devices such as pacemakers or loop recorders, oral anticoagulation with apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin, but a higher risk of major bleeding in the ARTESIA study.

The results appear to contrast somewhat with the recently reported NOAH-AFNET 6 trial, which failed to show a reduction in stroke with the anticoagulant edoxaban versus placebo in a similar patient group, but that trial was stopped early and so was underpowered.

However, the lead investigators of both trials say the studies actually show consistent results – both found a lower rate of stroke than expected in this population, but the confidence intervals for stroke reduction with anticoagulation overlap, suggesting there is likely some effect, albeit less than that in clinical AFib.

The big question is whether the reduction in stroke with anticoagulation outweighs the increase in major bleeding.

A new meta-analysis of the two trials showed that “oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of ischemic stroke by approximately one-third and increases major bleeding by roughly double.”

In absolute numbers, there were three fewer ischemic strokes per 1,000 patient-years with anticoagulation in the two trials combined, at the cost of seven more major bleeds.

The lead investigators of the two trials have somewhat different opinions on how these findings may translate into clinical practice.

Jeff Healey, MD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, believes that the risks and benefits need to be assessed in individual patients, but there should be some patient groups that will benefit from anticoagulation treatment.

“In patients with pacemakers or implantable loop recorders with continuous monitoring, subclinical AF[ib] is detected in about one third of patients, so this is extremely common,” he said in an interview. “The question is whether this is just a normal feature of getting older or is this like AF[ib] that we see in the clinic which increases stroke risk, and I think we can conclude from ARTESIA that this subclinical AF[ib] is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although that is lower than the risk with clinical AF[ib], and that it can be reduced by anticoagulation.”

Until recently it hasn’t been possible to quantify the risk associated with subclinical AFib, he noted. “But now we have a rich dataset to use to see if we can tease out some specifics on this. Future analyses of this dataset will help define patients where the benefits outweigh the risks of bleeding. For now, I think we can look at the data in a qualitative way and consider the totality of risk factors in each patient – their bleeding risk, stroke risk, how much AF[ib] they have, and make a decision as to whether to give anticoagulation or not.”

But Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), lead investigator of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial said: “Both trials showed the stroke rate is low in these patients – about 1% per year – and that anticoagulation can reduce it a bit further at the expense of increasing major bleeding. I don’t believe the AF[ib] episodes picked up on these devices constitute a sufficient stroke risk to warrant anticoagulation, given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Kirchhof suggests an alternate approach of performing further traditional AFib monitoring on these patients.

“I think going forward in my practice, when we come across this device-detected AF[ib], we will do further investigations with an established method for detecting AF[ib] involving surface ECG monitoring – maybe a 3-day or 7-day Holter. If that shows AF[ib], then we will be on firm ground to start anticoagulation. If that doesn’t show AF[ib], we will probably not use anticoagulation.”

The ARTESIA trial and the meta-analysis of the two trials were both presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Both studies were also simultaneously published online – ARTESIA in the New England Journal of Medicine and the meta-analysis in Circulation.
 

ARTESIA

For the ARTESIA study, 4012 patients with device-detected AFib and other clinical risk factors for stroke were randomly assigned to treatment with apixaban (5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 mg daily).

After a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary endpoint – stroke or systemic embolism – occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year), compared with 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year), giving a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.88; P = .007).

“The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower by 37% with apixaban than with aspirin, and the risk of disabling or fatal stroke was lower by 49%,” Dr. Healey reported.

In the “on-treatment” population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26-2.57; P = .001).

Fatal bleeding occurred in five patients in the apixaban group and eight patients in the aspirin group. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 12 patients with apixaban and 15 patients with aspirin.

One of the main findings of the trial is the lower-than-expected risk of ischemic stroke in this population – about 1% per year in the aspirin group, which was reduced to 0.64% per year in the apixaban group.

The authors noted that “simply counting strokes as compared with bleeding events might suggest a neutral overall effect. With apixaban as compared with aspirin, 31 fewer cases of stroke or systemic embolism were seen in the intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with 39 more major bleeding events in the on-treatment analysis.”

However, they pointed out that strokes involve permanent loss of brain tissue, whereas major bleeding is usually reversible, with most patients having complete recovery, which was the case in this study.

“Thus, on the basis of the considerably greater severity of the stroke events prevented than the bleeding events caused, we believe that these findings favor consideration of the use of oral anticoagulation for patients with risk factors for stroke in whom subclinical atrial fibrillation develops,” they concluded.
 

First well-powered trial addressing this question

Discussing the ARTESIA trial at an AHA press conference, Christine Albert, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said: “I want to emphasize how important this trial is.”

She explained that current guidelines do not recommend any treatment for patients with device-detected AFib that is not shown on ECG, even though it is known this confers some excess risk of stroke.

“ARTESIA is the first well-powered, long-term trial looking at this question,” she said. “It found a clear reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism with apixaban vs aspirin, but there was also a significant amount of bleeding – about an 80% increase. The question is whether the benefit on stroke is worth it given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Albert highlighted the low absolute risk of stroke in this study population of around 1.2%, pointing out that even with the 37% relative reduction with anticoagulation, stroke is only reduced in absolute terms by 0.4%.

“We are going to have to take this back to committees and guidelines and look at the balance between the benefit on stroke and the increase in bleeding,” she concluded.

Noting that observational studies have shown that the duration of AFib impacts the risk of stroke, Dr. Albert suggested that patients with longer-duration AFib may benefit from anticoagulation to a greater extent; and given that the bleeding seen in ARTESIA was mainly GI bleeding, it might be possible to screen out patients at high risk of GI bleeding.

She also pointed out that a lot of patients discontinued anticoagulation treatment in both ARTESIA and NOAH-AFNET 6, showing that this is not an easy strategy for elderly patients.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the ARTESIA trial, Emma Svennberg, MD, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also concluded that, “going forward, we must balance the increased bleeding risks with the risk for disabling strokes,” and that “future substudies and meta-analyses may provide further insights regarding treatment benefits in specific subgroups.”
 

NOAH-AFNET 6: New subgroup analysis

The previously reported NOAH-AFNET 6 study randomly assigned 2,538 patients with subclinical AFib and additional risk factors for stroke to anticoagulation with edoxaban or placebo. The trial was stopped early, so it was underpowered – but it found no difference between groups in the incidence of the composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes or in the incidence of stroke, although there was higher risk of major bleeding.

Again, there was a low rate of stroke in this trial with just 49 strokes in total in the whole study. The NOAH-AFNET-6 investigators concluded that these patients should not receive anticoagulation because the risk of bleeding outweighed any potential benefits.

A new subanalysis of the 259 patients who had durations of subclinical AFib of 24 hours or longer in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was presented at the AHA meeting, and simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

This showed that the rate of stroke also appeared low in patients with these long durations of subclinical AFib, and that there was no interaction between the duration of subclinical AFib and the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulation.

But with such a low number of events in the study as a whole and in the long duration subclinical AFib subgroup (in which there were just two strokes in each treatment group), this analysis was unlikely to show a difference, Dr. Kirchhof commented.

The subgroup analysis did, however, show that patients experiencing subclinical AFib durations of 24 hours or more were more likely to develop clinical AFib over time than those with shorter durations, suggesting the need for regular ECGs in these patients.

Dr. Kirchhof said better methods are needed to detect patients with subclinical AFib at high risk of stroke. “I don’t think our clinical stroke risk factor scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc are sufficient to detect high-risk patients. Patients in both NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESIA had a median CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4, but they had a stroke rate of just 1% per year,” he noted.

The meta-analysis of the two trials showed that the results from both are consistent, with an overall reduction in ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulation (relative risk, 0.68). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85).

There was no significant difference in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08), but anticoagulation significantly increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62).
 

Aspirin use complicates results

Dr. Healey said further analyses of the ARTESIA data will try to tease out the effect of concomitant aspirin use in the trial.

He explained that patients in this trial were allowed to take a single antiplatelet agent on top of study therapy.

“It is difficult to work out the exact use of antiplatelet therapy as it changed throughout the study,” he said. “About two-thirds were taking antiplatelet agents at the time of enrollment into the trial, but this decreased throughout the study. Many clinicians stopped open-label antiplatelet therapy during the trial when new evidence came out to suggest that there was no added benefit of adding aspirin on top of anticoagulants.

“We need to look carefully as to what impact that may have had,” Dr. Healey added. “We know from other studies that adding an antiplatelet on top of an anticoagulant doesn’t do much to thromboembolic events, but it approximately doubles the risk of major bleeding.”

In contrast, the NOAH-AFNET trial did not allow aspirin use in the anticoagulation group and aspirin was taken by around half the patients in the placebo group who had an indication for its use.

The authors of the meta-analysis pointed out that the omission of aspirin in nearly half of the control patients in NOAH-AFNET 6 and the early termination of the trial may have led to a slightly higher estimate for excess major bleeding with anticoagulation.

The ARTESIA study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Prevention Intervention Network, Hamilton Health Sciences, the Advancing Clinical Trials Network and the Population Health Research Institute. Dr. Healey reported research grants and speaking fees from BMS/Pfizer Alliance, Servier, Novartis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic; and acts as a consultant to Bayer, Servier and Boston Scientific. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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