Cardiology

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

A 70-year-old man with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) is seen for concerns about erectile dysfunction (ED). He is requesting sildenafil. He has stable angina, having chest pain with exercise. He uses sublingual nitroglycerin (SL NTG prn) about three times a month. His blood pressure is 140/70 mm Hg. His pulse is 60 beats per minute. His current medications are lisinopril, atorvastatin, aspirin, and SL NTG tablets as needed.

What would you recommend?

A. No sildenafil; refer to urologist for other ED options.

B. Okay to use sildenafil if greater than 6 hours from NTG use.

C. Recommend tadalafil.

Is coprescribing nitrates and phosphodiesterase inhibitors safe?

The FDA warns against the use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in patients taking nitrates. Combining nitrates with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors is contraindicated because of a synergistic blood pressure lowering effect.¹ This warning/contraindication was based on theoretical concerns, as well as concern that of the first 130 deaths reported in patients who took sildenafil, 16 of the patients also were taking nitrates.²

Parker and colleagues studied the safety of giving IV nitroglycerin to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who have taken sildenafil.³ The study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Participants received sildenafil 100 mg or placebo, then received intravenous NTG. Patients who received sildenafil had a 4-6 mm Hg systolic BP drop compared with those who took the placebo. There was no difference in severe events between the sildenafil and placebo groups. The blood levels of nitroglycerin in this study were very likely much higher than the levels that occur with SL NTG.

A recent study by Holt et al. looked at overall cardiovascular outcomes with coprescribing nitrates and phosphodiesterase inhibitors.⁴ The study was a case crossover design, using a nationwide Danish health registry over the period of 2000-2018. In 2000, the rate of coprescribing of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in ischemic heart disease patients on nitrates was .9 per 100 persons/year and rose to 19.5 prescriptions per 100 persons/year in 2018. During this same time, no statistically significant association was found between the coprescription of nitrates with PDE5 inhibitors and the risk for MI, cardiac arrest, syncope, stroke, or an adverse drug event.
 

Does nitroglycerin response help determine cause of chest pain?

Nitroglycerin response has long been used as a clinical indicator on whether a patient’s chest pain is cardiac or not. Eric A. Shry, MD, and his colleagues looked at the usefulness of nitroglycerin response in the treatment of chest pain as a predictor of ischemic chest pain in an emergency department setting.⁵

The study was a retrospective review of 223 patients who presented to the emergency department over a 5-month period with ongoing chest pain. They looked at patients who had ongoing chest pain in the emergency department, received nitroglycerin, and did not receive any therapy other than aspirin within 10 minutes of receiving nitroglycerin. Response to the drug was compared with the final diagnosis of cardiac versus noncardiac chest pain.

Of the patients with a final determination of cardiac chest pain, 88% had a nitroglycerin response, whereas 92% of the patients with noncardiac chest pain had a nitroglycerin response (P = .50).

Deborah B. Diercks, MD, and her colleagues looked at improvement in chest pain scores in the emergency department in patients treated with nitroglycerin and whether it correlated with a cardiac etiology of chest pain.⁶ The study was a prospective, observational study of 664 patients in an urban tertiary care emergency department over a 16-month period. An 11-point numeric chest pain scale was assessed and recorded by research assistants before and 5 minutes after receiving nitroglycerin. The scale ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable).

A final diagnosis of a cardiac etiology for chest pain was found in 18% of the patients in the study. Of the patients who had cardiac-related chest pain, 20% had no reduction in pain with nitroglycerin, compared with 19% of the patients without cardiac-related chest pain.

A complete or significant reduction in chest pain occurred with nitroglycerin in 31% of patients with cardiac chest pain and 27% of the patients without cardiac chest pain (P = .76).

Nitroglycerin response does not appear to be helpful in distinguishing cardiac from noncardiac chest pain, but a study by His and colleagues offers an interesting twist.⁷

The authors of this research studied 118 patients looking to see if the side effect of headache with nitroglycerin was more common in patients who did not have CAD than in those who did. All the patients had a varying degree of relief of chest pain with NTG administration within 10 minutes. In patients with normal coronary arteries or minimal CAD, 73% had headache caused by NTG, whereas in patients with obstructive CAD, only 23% had headache after NTG use.
 

Take-home messages

• Short acting nitroglycerin may not be a contraindication for phosphodiesterase inhibitor use.
• More data are still needed.
• Nitroglycerin response does not help distinguish chest pain from CAD from noncardiac causes.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Schwartz BG, Kloner RA. Drug interactions with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction or pulmonary hypertension. Circulation. 2010;122:88-95.

2. Kloner RA, Zusman RM. Cardiovascular effects of sildenafil citrate and recommendations for its use. Am J Cardiol. 1999 Sep 9;84(5B):11N-17N.

3. Parker JD et al. Safety of intravenous nitroglycerin after administration of sildenafil citrate to men with coronary artery disease: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover trial. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1863-8.

4. Holt A et al. Adverse events associated with coprescription of phosphodiesterase type inhibitors and oral organic nitrates in male patients with ischemic heart disease. Ann Intern Med. 2022 Jun;175(6):774-82.

5. Shry EA et al. Usefulness of the response to sublingual nitroglycerin as a predictor of ischemic chest pain in the emergency department. Am J Cardiol. 2002 Dec 1;90(11):1264-6.

6. Diercks DB et al. Changes in the numeric descriptive scale for pain after sublingual nitroglycerin do not predict cardiac etiology of chest pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Jun;45(6):581-5.

7. His DH et al. Headache response to glyceryl trinitrate in patients with and without obstructive coronary artery disease. Heart 2005;91:1164-6.

A 70-year-old man with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) is seen for concerns about erectile dysfunction (ED). He is requesting sildenafil. He has stable angina, having chest pain with exercise. He uses sublingual nitroglycerin (SL NTG prn) about three times a month. His blood pressure is 140/70 mm Hg. His pulse is 60 beats per minute. His current medications are lisinopril, atorvastatin, aspirin, and SL NTG tablets as needed.

What would you recommend?

A. No sildenafil; refer to urologist for other ED options.

B. Okay to use sildenafil if greater than 6 hours from NTG use.

C. Recommend tadalafil.

Is coprescribing nitrates and phosphodiesterase inhibitors safe?

The FDA warns against the use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in patients taking nitrates. Combining nitrates with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors is contraindicated because of a synergistic blood pressure lowering effect.¹ This warning/contraindication was based on theoretical concerns, as well as concern that of the first 130 deaths reported in patients who took sildenafil, 16 of the patients also were taking nitrates.²

Parker and colleagues studied the safety of giving IV nitroglycerin to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who have taken sildenafil.³ The study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Participants received sildenafil 100 mg or placebo, then received intravenous NTG. Patients who received sildenafil had a 4-6 mm Hg systolic BP drop compared with those who took the placebo. There was no difference in severe events between the sildenafil and placebo groups. The blood levels of nitroglycerin in this study were very likely much higher than the levels that occur with SL NTG.

A recent study by Holt et al. looked at overall cardiovascular outcomes with coprescribing nitrates and phosphodiesterase inhibitors.⁴ The study was a case crossover design, using a nationwide Danish health registry over the period of 2000-2018. In 2000, the rate of coprescribing of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in ischemic heart disease patients on nitrates was .9 per 100 persons/year and rose to 19.5 prescriptions per 100 persons/year in 2018. During this same time, no statistically significant association was found between the coprescription of nitrates with PDE5 inhibitors and the risk for MI, cardiac arrest, syncope, stroke, or an adverse drug event.
 

Does nitroglycerin response help determine cause of chest pain?

Nitroglycerin response has long been used as a clinical indicator on whether a patient’s chest pain is cardiac or not. Eric A. Shry, MD, and his colleagues looked at the usefulness of nitroglycerin response in the treatment of chest pain as a predictor of ischemic chest pain in an emergency department setting.⁵

The study was a retrospective review of 223 patients who presented to the emergency department over a 5-month period with ongoing chest pain. They looked at patients who had ongoing chest pain in the emergency department, received nitroglycerin, and did not receive any therapy other than aspirin within 10 minutes of receiving nitroglycerin. Response to the drug was compared with the final diagnosis of cardiac versus noncardiac chest pain.

Of the patients with a final determination of cardiac chest pain, 88% had a nitroglycerin response, whereas 92% of the patients with noncardiac chest pain had a nitroglycerin response (P = .50).

Deborah B. Diercks, MD, and her colleagues looked at improvement in chest pain scores in the emergency department in patients treated with nitroglycerin and whether it correlated with a cardiac etiology of chest pain.⁶ The study was a prospective, observational study of 664 patients in an urban tertiary care emergency department over a 16-month period. An 11-point numeric chest pain scale was assessed and recorded by research assistants before and 5 minutes after receiving nitroglycerin. The scale ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable).

A final diagnosis of a cardiac etiology for chest pain was found in 18% of the patients in the study. Of the patients who had cardiac-related chest pain, 20% had no reduction in pain with nitroglycerin, compared with 19% of the patients without cardiac-related chest pain.

A complete or significant reduction in chest pain occurred with nitroglycerin in 31% of patients with cardiac chest pain and 27% of the patients without cardiac chest pain (P = .76).

Nitroglycerin response does not appear to be helpful in distinguishing cardiac from noncardiac chest pain, but a study by His and colleagues offers an interesting twist.⁷

The authors of this research studied 118 patients looking to see if the side effect of headache with nitroglycerin was more common in patients who did not have CAD than in those who did. All the patients had a varying degree of relief of chest pain with NTG administration within 10 minutes. In patients with normal coronary arteries or minimal CAD, 73% had headache caused by NTG, whereas in patients with obstructive CAD, only 23% had headache after NTG use.
 

Take-home messages

• Short acting nitroglycerin may not be a contraindication for phosphodiesterase inhibitor use.
• More data are still needed.
• Nitroglycerin response does not help distinguish chest pain from CAD from noncardiac causes.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Schwartz BG, Kloner RA. Drug interactions with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction or pulmonary hypertension. Circulation. 2010;122:88-95.

2. Kloner RA, Zusman RM. Cardiovascular effects of sildenafil citrate and recommendations for its use. Am J Cardiol. 1999 Sep 9;84(5B):11N-17N.

3. Parker JD et al. Safety of intravenous nitroglycerin after administration of sildenafil citrate to men with coronary artery disease: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover trial. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1863-8.

4. Holt A et al. Adverse events associated with coprescription of phosphodiesterase type inhibitors and oral organic nitrates in male patients with ischemic heart disease. Ann Intern Med. 2022 Jun;175(6):774-82.

5. Shry EA et al. Usefulness of the response to sublingual nitroglycerin as a predictor of ischemic chest pain in the emergency department. Am J Cardiol. 2002 Dec 1;90(11):1264-6.

6. Diercks DB et al. Changes in the numeric descriptive scale for pain after sublingual nitroglycerin do not predict cardiac etiology of chest pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Jun;45(6):581-5.

7. His DH et al. Headache response to glyceryl trinitrate in patients with and without obstructive coronary artery disease. Heart 2005;91:1164-6.

A 70-year-old man with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) is seen for concerns about erectile dysfunction (ED). He is requesting sildenafil. He has stable angina, having chest pain with exercise. He uses sublingual nitroglycerin (SL NTG prn) about three times a month. His blood pressure is 140/70 mm Hg. His pulse is 60 beats per minute. His current medications are lisinopril, atorvastatin, aspirin, and SL NTG tablets as needed.

What would you recommend?

A. No sildenafil; refer to urologist for other ED options.

B. Okay to use sildenafil if greater than 6 hours from NTG use.

C. Recommend tadalafil.

Is coprescribing nitrates and phosphodiesterase inhibitors safe?

The FDA warns against the use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in patients taking nitrates. Combining nitrates with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors is contraindicated because of a synergistic blood pressure lowering effect.¹ This warning/contraindication was based on theoretical concerns, as well as concern that of the first 130 deaths reported in patients who took sildenafil, 16 of the patients also were taking nitrates.²

Parker and colleagues studied the safety of giving IV nitroglycerin to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who have taken sildenafil.³ The study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Participants received sildenafil 100 mg or placebo, then received intravenous NTG. Patients who received sildenafil had a 4-6 mm Hg systolic BP drop compared with those who took the placebo. There was no difference in severe events between the sildenafil and placebo groups. The blood levels of nitroglycerin in this study were very likely much higher than the levels that occur with SL NTG.

A recent study by Holt et al. looked at overall cardiovascular outcomes with coprescribing nitrates and phosphodiesterase inhibitors.⁴ The study was a case crossover design, using a nationwide Danish health registry over the period of 2000-2018. In 2000, the rate of coprescribing of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in ischemic heart disease patients on nitrates was .9 per 100 persons/year and rose to 19.5 prescriptions per 100 persons/year in 2018. During this same time, no statistically significant association was found between the coprescription of nitrates with PDE5 inhibitors and the risk for MI, cardiac arrest, syncope, stroke, or an adverse drug event.
 

Does nitroglycerin response help determine cause of chest pain?

Nitroglycerin response has long been used as a clinical indicator on whether a patient’s chest pain is cardiac or not. Eric A. Shry, MD, and his colleagues looked at the usefulness of nitroglycerin response in the treatment of chest pain as a predictor of ischemic chest pain in an emergency department setting.⁵

The study was a retrospective review of 223 patients who presented to the emergency department over a 5-month period with ongoing chest pain. They looked at patients who had ongoing chest pain in the emergency department, received nitroglycerin, and did not receive any therapy other than aspirin within 10 minutes of receiving nitroglycerin. Response to the drug was compared with the final diagnosis of cardiac versus noncardiac chest pain.

Of the patients with a final determination of cardiac chest pain, 88% had a nitroglycerin response, whereas 92% of the patients with noncardiac chest pain had a nitroglycerin response (P = .50).

Deborah B. Diercks, MD, and her colleagues looked at improvement in chest pain scores in the emergency department in patients treated with nitroglycerin and whether it correlated with a cardiac etiology of chest pain.⁶ The study was a prospective, observational study of 664 patients in an urban tertiary care emergency department over a 16-month period. An 11-point numeric chest pain scale was assessed and recorded by research assistants before and 5 minutes after receiving nitroglycerin. The scale ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable).

A final diagnosis of a cardiac etiology for chest pain was found in 18% of the patients in the study. Of the patients who had cardiac-related chest pain, 20% had no reduction in pain with nitroglycerin, compared with 19% of the patients without cardiac-related chest pain.

A complete or significant reduction in chest pain occurred with nitroglycerin in 31% of patients with cardiac chest pain and 27% of the patients without cardiac chest pain (P = .76).

Nitroglycerin response does not appear to be helpful in distinguishing cardiac from noncardiac chest pain, but a study by His and colleagues offers an interesting twist.⁷

The authors of this research studied 118 patients looking to see if the side effect of headache with nitroglycerin was more common in patients who did not have CAD than in those who did. All the patients had a varying degree of relief of chest pain with NTG administration within 10 minutes. In patients with normal coronary arteries or minimal CAD, 73% had headache caused by NTG, whereas in patients with obstructive CAD, only 23% had headache after NTG use.
 

Take-home messages

• Short acting nitroglycerin may not be a contraindication for phosphodiesterase inhibitor use.
• More data are still needed.
• Nitroglycerin response does not help distinguish chest pain from CAD from noncardiac causes.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Schwartz BG, Kloner RA. Drug interactions with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction or pulmonary hypertension. Circulation. 2010;122:88-95.

2. Kloner RA, Zusman RM. Cardiovascular effects of sildenafil citrate and recommendations for its use. Am J Cardiol. 1999 Sep 9;84(5B):11N-17N.

3. Parker JD et al. Safety of intravenous nitroglycerin after administration of sildenafil citrate to men with coronary artery disease: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover trial. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1863-8.

4. Holt A et al. Adverse events associated with coprescription of phosphodiesterase type inhibitors and oral organic nitrates in male patients with ischemic heart disease. Ann Intern Med. 2022 Jun;175(6):774-82.

5. Shry EA et al. Usefulness of the response to sublingual nitroglycerin as a predictor of ischemic chest pain in the emergency department. Am J Cardiol. 2002 Dec 1;90(11):1264-6.

6. Diercks DB et al. Changes in the numeric descriptive scale for pain after sublingual nitroglycerin do not predict cardiac etiology of chest pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Jun;45(6):581-5.

7. His DH et al. Headache response to glyceryl trinitrate in patients with and without obstructive coronary artery disease. Heart 2005;91:1164-6.

A prespecified analysis of a large global trial of patients with symptomatic heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction “seals the deal” on the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to manage and improve their symptoms.

The prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial included 5,795 patients with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction who completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) after taking the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin or placebo. The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve known from studies prior to DELIVER that SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve health status, patient symptoms and quality of life among those that are living with heart failure and mildly reduced [HFmrEF] and preserved [HFpEF] ejection fraction,” lead author Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, vice president for research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the St. Luke’s Michael and Marly Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview. “But the picture was incomplete for a number of different reasons, partly because the previous studies were either relatively modest in size, geographically limited, or suggested potential attenuation of these benefits in patients with completely normal ejection fraction.”

Specifically, the study authors noted the EMPEROR-Preserved trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin showed improvement in health status vs. placebo across the range of EF except in those with normal EF of 65% or greater. The PRESERVED-HF trial of dapagliflozin demonstrated a more robust response than EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER, but PRESERVED-HF patients were recruited only in the United States and had more debilitating HF symptoms at baseline.

“Because of the results of the DELIVER trial and because of how large, extensive, and inclusive the trial was, it really seals the deal on the value of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

The DELIVER analysis found that the effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death and worsening HF were greatest in patients who had the most debilitating symptoms at baseline, measured as KCCQ total symptom score (TSS) as 63 or less, the lowest of three tertiles used in the analysis. At baseline, these patients had the highest rates of CV death or worsening HF than those in the other two tertiles: KCCQ-TSS of 63-84, and greater than 84.

Compared with placebo, treated patients in the lowest KCCQ-TSS quartile had a 30% reduction in risk for the primary composite outcome, which consisted of time to first CV death or HF event (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.84; P < .001). In the second tertile, the relative risk reduction was 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.01; P < .006), and the highest quartile showed no significant difference between treatment and placebo (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P < .62).

“The most important take home message is that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improved patient symptoms as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “It improved those symptoms within 1 month and those benefits were sustained out to 8 months.”

DELIVER patients also showed improvement in all other key KCCQ domains across the board, he added. “In addition, dapagliflozin also improved the proportion of patients who had small, moderate, and large improvements in a responder analysis. So really, by every measure that we had, dapagliflozin had a significant beneficial effect.”

The DELIVER results taken collectively with the EMPEROR-Preserved and PRESERVED-HF trials cinch the deal for SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Kosiborod said. “They deliver on the triple goal of care in patients with heart failure. They reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure and they improve patient symptoms, function and quality of life – and they accomplish that across the entire continuum of heart failure regardless of ejection fraction, regardless of whether patients are hospitalized or in an ambulatory setting, regardless of age or background therapies or other comorbidities.”

He added: “It’s a pretty historic development because we haven’t had that before.”

AstraZeneca funded the DELIVER trial. Dr. Kosiborod disclosed financial relationships with Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pharmacosmos and Vifor Pharma.
 

A prespecified analysis of a large global trial of patients with symptomatic heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction “seals the deal” on the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to manage and improve their symptoms.

The prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial included 5,795 patients with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction who completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) after taking the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin or placebo. The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve known from studies prior to DELIVER that SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve health status, patient symptoms and quality of life among those that are living with heart failure and mildly reduced [HFmrEF] and preserved [HFpEF] ejection fraction,” lead author Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, vice president for research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the St. Luke’s Michael and Marly Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview. “But the picture was incomplete for a number of different reasons, partly because the previous studies were either relatively modest in size, geographically limited, or suggested potential attenuation of these benefits in patients with completely normal ejection fraction.”

Specifically, the study authors noted the EMPEROR-Preserved trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin showed improvement in health status vs. placebo across the range of EF except in those with normal EF of 65% or greater. The PRESERVED-HF trial of dapagliflozin demonstrated a more robust response than EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER, but PRESERVED-HF patients were recruited only in the United States and had more debilitating HF symptoms at baseline.

“Because of the results of the DELIVER trial and because of how large, extensive, and inclusive the trial was, it really seals the deal on the value of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

The DELIVER analysis found that the effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death and worsening HF were greatest in patients who had the most debilitating symptoms at baseline, measured as KCCQ total symptom score (TSS) as 63 or less, the lowest of three tertiles used in the analysis. At baseline, these patients had the highest rates of CV death or worsening HF than those in the other two tertiles: KCCQ-TSS of 63-84, and greater than 84.

Compared with placebo, treated patients in the lowest KCCQ-TSS quartile had a 30% reduction in risk for the primary composite outcome, which consisted of time to first CV death or HF event (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.84; P < .001). In the second tertile, the relative risk reduction was 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.01; P < .006), and the highest quartile showed no significant difference between treatment and placebo (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P < .62).

“The most important take home message is that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improved patient symptoms as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “It improved those symptoms within 1 month and those benefits were sustained out to 8 months.”

DELIVER patients also showed improvement in all other key KCCQ domains across the board, he added. “In addition, dapagliflozin also improved the proportion of patients who had small, moderate, and large improvements in a responder analysis. So really, by every measure that we had, dapagliflozin had a significant beneficial effect.”

The DELIVER results taken collectively with the EMPEROR-Preserved and PRESERVED-HF trials cinch the deal for SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Kosiborod said. “They deliver on the triple goal of care in patients with heart failure. They reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure and they improve patient symptoms, function and quality of life – and they accomplish that across the entire continuum of heart failure regardless of ejection fraction, regardless of whether patients are hospitalized or in an ambulatory setting, regardless of age or background therapies or other comorbidities.”

He added: “It’s a pretty historic development because we haven’t had that before.”

AstraZeneca funded the DELIVER trial. Dr. Kosiborod disclosed financial relationships with Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pharmacosmos and Vifor Pharma.
 

A prespecified analysis of a large global trial of patients with symptomatic heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction “seals the deal” on the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to manage and improve their symptoms.

The prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial included 5,795 patients with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction who completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) after taking the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin or placebo. The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve known from studies prior to DELIVER that SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve health status, patient symptoms and quality of life among those that are living with heart failure and mildly reduced [HFmrEF] and preserved [HFpEF] ejection fraction,” lead author Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, vice president for research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the St. Luke’s Michael and Marly Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview. “But the picture was incomplete for a number of different reasons, partly because the previous studies were either relatively modest in size, geographically limited, or suggested potential attenuation of these benefits in patients with completely normal ejection fraction.”

Specifically, the study authors noted the EMPEROR-Preserved trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin showed improvement in health status vs. placebo across the range of EF except in those with normal EF of 65% or greater. The PRESERVED-HF trial of dapagliflozin demonstrated a more robust response than EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER, but PRESERVED-HF patients were recruited only in the United States and had more debilitating HF symptoms at baseline.

“Because of the results of the DELIVER trial and because of how large, extensive, and inclusive the trial was, it really seals the deal on the value of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

The DELIVER analysis found that the effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death and worsening HF were greatest in patients who had the most debilitating symptoms at baseline, measured as KCCQ total symptom score (TSS) as 63 or less, the lowest of three tertiles used in the analysis. At baseline, these patients had the highest rates of CV death or worsening HF than those in the other two tertiles: KCCQ-TSS of 63-84, and greater than 84.

Compared with placebo, treated patients in the lowest KCCQ-TSS quartile had a 30% reduction in risk for the primary composite outcome, which consisted of time to first CV death or HF event (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.84; P < .001). In the second tertile, the relative risk reduction was 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.01; P < .006), and the highest quartile showed no significant difference between treatment and placebo (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P < .62).

“The most important take home message is that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improved patient symptoms as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “It improved those symptoms within 1 month and those benefits were sustained out to 8 months.”

DELIVER patients also showed improvement in all other key KCCQ domains across the board, he added. “In addition, dapagliflozin also improved the proportion of patients who had small, moderate, and large improvements in a responder analysis. So really, by every measure that we had, dapagliflozin had a significant beneficial effect.”

The DELIVER results taken collectively with the EMPEROR-Preserved and PRESERVED-HF trials cinch the deal for SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Kosiborod said. “They deliver on the triple goal of care in patients with heart failure. They reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure and they improve patient symptoms, function and quality of life – and they accomplish that across the entire continuum of heart failure regardless of ejection fraction, regardless of whether patients are hospitalized or in an ambulatory setting, regardless of age or background therapies or other comorbidities.”

He added: “It’s a pretty historic development because we haven’t had that before.”

AstraZeneca funded the DELIVER trial. Dr. Kosiborod disclosed financial relationships with Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pharmacosmos and Vifor Pharma.
 

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration has recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee on Dec. 13 voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF.

Those who voted in favor of the drug cited the clinical benefit (albeit small) and good safety profile of the drug as well as the unmet need for new treatments.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she voted yes “on the basis of need,” and her personal experience, as well as the data presented, that “up to half of severe heart failure patients are intolerant of guidelines directed medical therapy.”

Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, with Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., who also voted in favor of approval for the drug, cited the “important unmet need,” and said he believes “a path was constructed in which one could go forward safely and with enhanced efficacy.

“It may be a narrow path, but I think it’s a path that would afford a lot of benefit to this high-risk patient population,” said Dr. O’Connor.

Those who voted against approval generally felt the benefit was not large enough and that more data are needed, given this is a first-in-class agent.

Julia B. Lewis, MD, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who voted no, said she was concerned that, despite the large size of the trial, “a more positive effect could not have been found.” She was also concerned that there was no benefit on quality of life or any other secondary outcomes. 

David J. Moliterno, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, who also voted no, felt the benefits were “more singular and that being a modest reduction primarily limited to fewer outpatient visits.” Dr. Moliterno, like many of the committee members who voted no, called for more study.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association 2020 scientific sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a statement, Robert I. Blum, president and CEO of Cytokinetics, said, “We are disappointed there was not a greater consensus amongst committee members relating to the benefit-risk of omecamtiv mecarbil, and we maintain our conviction in the strength of evidence supporting its potential benefit for patients suffering from HFrEF.”

He added that the company plans to engage constructively with the FDA as it completes its review of the application for omecamtiv mecarbil. 

The drug has a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of Feb. 28, 2023.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration has recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee on Dec. 13 voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF.

Those who voted in favor of the drug cited the clinical benefit (albeit small) and good safety profile of the drug as well as the unmet need for new treatments.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she voted yes “on the basis of need,” and her personal experience, as well as the data presented, that “up to half of severe heart failure patients are intolerant of guidelines directed medical therapy.”

Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, with Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., who also voted in favor of approval for the drug, cited the “important unmet need,” and said he believes “a path was constructed in which one could go forward safely and with enhanced efficacy.

“It may be a narrow path, but I think it’s a path that would afford a lot of benefit to this high-risk patient population,” said Dr. O’Connor.

Those who voted against approval generally felt the benefit was not large enough and that more data are needed, given this is a first-in-class agent.

Julia B. Lewis, MD, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who voted no, said she was concerned that, despite the large size of the trial, “a more positive effect could not have been found.” She was also concerned that there was no benefit on quality of life or any other secondary outcomes. 

David J. Moliterno, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, who also voted no, felt the benefits were “more singular and that being a modest reduction primarily limited to fewer outpatient visits.” Dr. Moliterno, like many of the committee members who voted no, called for more study.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association 2020 scientific sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a statement, Robert I. Blum, president and CEO of Cytokinetics, said, “We are disappointed there was not a greater consensus amongst committee members relating to the benefit-risk of omecamtiv mecarbil, and we maintain our conviction in the strength of evidence supporting its potential benefit for patients suffering from HFrEF.”

He added that the company plans to engage constructively with the FDA as it completes its review of the application for omecamtiv mecarbil. 

The drug has a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of Feb. 28, 2023.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration has recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee on Dec. 13 voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF.

Those who voted in favor of the drug cited the clinical benefit (albeit small) and good safety profile of the drug as well as the unmet need for new treatments.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she voted yes “on the basis of need,” and her personal experience, as well as the data presented, that “up to half of severe heart failure patients are intolerant of guidelines directed medical therapy.”

Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, with Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., who also voted in favor of approval for the drug, cited the “important unmet need,” and said he believes “a path was constructed in which one could go forward safely and with enhanced efficacy.

“It may be a narrow path, but I think it’s a path that would afford a lot of benefit to this high-risk patient population,” said Dr. O’Connor.

Those who voted against approval generally felt the benefit was not large enough and that more data are needed, given this is a first-in-class agent.

Julia B. Lewis, MD, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who voted no, said she was concerned that, despite the large size of the trial, “a more positive effect could not have been found.” She was also concerned that there was no benefit on quality of life or any other secondary outcomes. 

David J. Moliterno, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, who also voted no, felt the benefits were “more singular and that being a modest reduction primarily limited to fewer outpatient visits.” Dr. Moliterno, like many of the committee members who voted no, called for more study.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association 2020 scientific sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a statement, Robert I. Blum, president and CEO of Cytokinetics, said, “We are disappointed there was not a greater consensus amongst committee members relating to the benefit-risk of omecamtiv mecarbil, and we maintain our conviction in the strength of evidence supporting its potential benefit for patients suffering from HFrEF.”

He added that the company plans to engage constructively with the FDA as it completes its review of the application for omecamtiv mecarbil. 

The drug has a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of Feb. 28, 2023.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

There are some benefits and potentially serious risks associated with complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) patients with heart failure (HF) may use to manage symptoms, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement on the topic.

For example, yoga and tai chi can be helpful for people with HF, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may also have benefits. However, there are safety concerns with other commonly used over-the-counter CAM therapies, including vitamin D, blue cohosh, and Lily of the Valley, the writing group said.

It’s estimated that roughly one in three patients with HF use CAM. But often patients don’t report their CAM use to their clinicians and clinicians may not routinely ask about CAM use or have the resources to evaluate CAM therapies, writing group chair Sheryl L. Chow, PharmD, told this news organization.

“This represents a major public health problem given that consumers are frequently purchasing these potentially dangerous and minimally regulated products without the knowledge or advice from a health care professional,” said Dr. Chow, of Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, Calif., and University of California, Irvine.

The 27-page statement was published online in Circulation.
 

CAM use common in HF

The statement defines CAM as medical practices, supplements, and approaches that do not conform to the standards of conventional, evidence-based practice guidelines. CAM products are available without prescriptions or medical guidance at pharmacies, health food stores, and online retailers.

“These agents are largely unregulated by the [Food and Drug Administration] and manufacturers do not need to demonstrate efficacy or safety. It is important that both health care professionals and consumers improve communication with respect to OTC therapies and are educated about potential efficacy and risk of harm so that shared and informed decision-making can occur,” Dr. Chow said.

The writing group reviewed research published before November 2021 on CAM among people with HF.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as fish oil, have the strongest evidence among CAM agents for clinical benefit in HF and may be used safely by patients in moderation and in consultation with their health care team, the writing group said.

Research has shown that omega-3 PUFAs are associated with a lower risk of developing HF as well as improvements in left ventricular systolic function in those with existing HF, they pointed out.

However, two clinical trials found a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with high-dose omega-3 PUFA administration. “This risk appears to be dose-related and increased when exceeding 2 g/d of fish oil,” the writing group said.

Research suggests that yoga and tai chi, when added to standard HF treatment, may help improve exercise tolerance and quality of life and decrease blood pressure.
 

Inconclusive or potentially harmful CAM therapies

Other CAM therapies for HF have been shown as ineffective based on current data, have mixed findings, or appear to be harmful. The writers highlighted the following examples:

• Overall evidence regarding the value of vitamin D supplementation in patients with HF remains “inconclusive” and may be harmful when taken with HF medications such as digoxin, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics.
• Routine thiamine supplementation in patients with HF and without clinically significant thiamine deficiency may not be efficacious and should be avoided.
• Research on alcohol varies, with some data showing that drinking low-to-moderate amounts (one to two drinks per day) may help prevent HF, while habitual drinking or consuming higher amounts is known to contribute to HF.
• The literature is mixed on vitamin E. It may have some benefit in reducing the risk of HF with preserved ejection fraction but has also been associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization.
• Coenzyme Q10 (Co-Q10), commonly taken as a dietary supplement, may help improve HF class, symptoms, and quality of life, but it also may interact with antihypertensive and anticoagulant medication. Co-Q10 remains of “uncertain” value in HF at this time. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed before any definitive conclusion can be reached.
• Hawthorn, a flowering shrub, has been shown in some studies to increase exercise tolerance and improve HF symptoms such as fatigue. Yet it also has the potential to worsen HF, and there is conflicting research about whether it interacts with digoxin.
• The herbal supplement blue cohosh, from the root of a flowering plant found in hardwood forests, could cause tachycardia, high blood pressure, chest pain, and increased blood glucose. It may also decrease the effect of medications taken to treat high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, they noted.
• Lily of the Valley, the root, stems, and flower of which are used in supplements, has long been used in mild HF because it contains active chemicals similar to digoxin. But when taken with digoxin, it could lead to hypokalemia.

In an AHA news release, Dr. Chow said, “Overall, more quality research and well-powered randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand the risks and benefits” of CAM therapies for HF.

“This scientific statement provides critical information to health care professionals who treat people with heart failure and may be used as a resource for consumers about the potential benefit and harm associated with complementary and alternative medicine products,” Dr. Chow added.

The writing group encourages health care professionals to routinely ask their HF patients about their use of CAM therapies. They also say pharmacists should be included in the multidisciplinary health care team to provide consultations about the use of CAM therapies for HF patients.

The scientific statement does not include cannabis or traditional Chinese medicine, which have also been used in HF.

In 2020, the AHA published a separate scientific statement on the use of medical marijuana and recreational cannabis on cardiovascular health, as reported previously by this news organization.

The scientific statement on CAM for HF was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Clinical Pharmacology Committee and Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

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

There are some benefits and potentially serious risks associated with complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) patients with heart failure (HF) may use to manage symptoms, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement on the topic.

For example, yoga and tai chi can be helpful for people with HF, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may also have benefits. However, there are safety concerns with other commonly used over-the-counter CAM therapies, including vitamin D, blue cohosh, and Lily of the Valley, the writing group said.

It’s estimated that roughly one in three patients with HF use CAM. But often patients don’t report their CAM use to their clinicians and clinicians may not routinely ask about CAM use or have the resources to evaluate CAM therapies, writing group chair Sheryl L. Chow, PharmD, told this news organization.

“This represents a major public health problem given that consumers are frequently purchasing these potentially dangerous and minimally regulated products without the knowledge or advice from a health care professional,” said Dr. Chow, of Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, Calif., and University of California, Irvine.

The 27-page statement was published online in Circulation.
 

CAM use common in HF

The statement defines CAM as medical practices, supplements, and approaches that do not conform to the standards of conventional, evidence-based practice guidelines. CAM products are available without prescriptions or medical guidance at pharmacies, health food stores, and online retailers.

“These agents are largely unregulated by the [Food and Drug Administration] and manufacturers do not need to demonstrate efficacy or safety. It is important that both health care professionals and consumers improve communication with respect to OTC therapies and are educated about potential efficacy and risk of harm so that shared and informed decision-making can occur,” Dr. Chow said.

The writing group reviewed research published before November 2021 on CAM among people with HF.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as fish oil, have the strongest evidence among CAM agents for clinical benefit in HF and may be used safely by patients in moderation and in consultation with their health care team, the writing group said.

Research has shown that omega-3 PUFAs are associated with a lower risk of developing HF as well as improvements in left ventricular systolic function in those with existing HF, they pointed out.

However, two clinical trials found a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with high-dose omega-3 PUFA administration. “This risk appears to be dose-related and increased when exceeding 2 g/d of fish oil,” the writing group said.

Research suggests that yoga and tai chi, when added to standard HF treatment, may help improve exercise tolerance and quality of life and decrease blood pressure.
 

Inconclusive or potentially harmful CAM therapies

Other CAM therapies for HF have been shown as ineffective based on current data, have mixed findings, or appear to be harmful. The writers highlighted the following examples:

• Overall evidence regarding the value of vitamin D supplementation in patients with HF remains “inconclusive” and may be harmful when taken with HF medications such as digoxin, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics.
• Routine thiamine supplementation in patients with HF and without clinically significant thiamine deficiency may not be efficacious and should be avoided.
• Research on alcohol varies, with some data showing that drinking low-to-moderate amounts (one to two drinks per day) may help prevent HF, while habitual drinking or consuming higher amounts is known to contribute to HF.
• The literature is mixed on vitamin E. It may have some benefit in reducing the risk of HF with preserved ejection fraction but has also been associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization.
• Coenzyme Q10 (Co-Q10), commonly taken as a dietary supplement, may help improve HF class, symptoms, and quality of life, but it also may interact with antihypertensive and anticoagulant medication. Co-Q10 remains of “uncertain” value in HF at this time. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed before any definitive conclusion can be reached.
• Hawthorn, a flowering shrub, has been shown in some studies to increase exercise tolerance and improve HF symptoms such as fatigue. Yet it also has the potential to worsen HF, and there is conflicting research about whether it interacts with digoxin.
• The herbal supplement blue cohosh, from the root of a flowering plant found in hardwood forests, could cause tachycardia, high blood pressure, chest pain, and increased blood glucose. It may also decrease the effect of medications taken to treat high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, they noted.
• Lily of the Valley, the root, stems, and flower of which are used in supplements, has long been used in mild HF because it contains active chemicals similar to digoxin. But when taken with digoxin, it could lead to hypokalemia.

In an AHA news release, Dr. Chow said, “Overall, more quality research and well-powered randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand the risks and benefits” of CAM therapies for HF.

“This scientific statement provides critical information to health care professionals who treat people with heart failure and may be used as a resource for consumers about the potential benefit and harm associated with complementary and alternative medicine products,” Dr. Chow added.

The writing group encourages health care professionals to routinely ask their HF patients about their use of CAM therapies. They also say pharmacists should be included in the multidisciplinary health care team to provide consultations about the use of CAM therapies for HF patients.

The scientific statement does not include cannabis or traditional Chinese medicine, which have also been used in HF.

In 2020, the AHA published a separate scientific statement on the use of medical marijuana and recreational cannabis on cardiovascular health, as reported previously by this news organization.

The scientific statement on CAM for HF was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Clinical Pharmacology Committee and Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

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

There are some benefits and potentially serious risks associated with complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) patients with heart failure (HF) may use to manage symptoms, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement on the topic.

For example, yoga and tai chi can be helpful for people with HF, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may also have benefits. However, there are safety concerns with other commonly used over-the-counter CAM therapies, including vitamin D, blue cohosh, and Lily of the Valley, the writing group said.

It’s estimated that roughly one in three patients with HF use CAM. But often patients don’t report their CAM use to their clinicians and clinicians may not routinely ask about CAM use or have the resources to evaluate CAM therapies, writing group chair Sheryl L. Chow, PharmD, told this news organization.

“This represents a major public health problem given that consumers are frequently purchasing these potentially dangerous and minimally regulated products without the knowledge or advice from a health care professional,” said Dr. Chow, of Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, Calif., and University of California, Irvine.

The 27-page statement was published online in Circulation.
 

CAM use common in HF

The statement defines CAM as medical practices, supplements, and approaches that do not conform to the standards of conventional, evidence-based practice guidelines. CAM products are available without prescriptions or medical guidance at pharmacies, health food stores, and online retailers.

“These agents are largely unregulated by the [Food and Drug Administration] and manufacturers do not need to demonstrate efficacy or safety. It is important that both health care professionals and consumers improve communication with respect to OTC therapies and are educated about potential efficacy and risk of harm so that shared and informed decision-making can occur,” Dr. Chow said.

The writing group reviewed research published before November 2021 on CAM among people with HF.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as fish oil, have the strongest evidence among CAM agents for clinical benefit in HF and may be used safely by patients in moderation and in consultation with their health care team, the writing group said.

Research has shown that omega-3 PUFAs are associated with a lower risk of developing HF as well as improvements in left ventricular systolic function in those with existing HF, they pointed out.

However, two clinical trials found a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with high-dose omega-3 PUFA administration. “This risk appears to be dose-related and increased when exceeding 2 g/d of fish oil,” the writing group said.

Research suggests that yoga and tai chi, when added to standard HF treatment, may help improve exercise tolerance and quality of life and decrease blood pressure.
 

Inconclusive or potentially harmful CAM therapies

Other CAM therapies for HF have been shown as ineffective based on current data, have mixed findings, or appear to be harmful. The writers highlighted the following examples:

• Overall evidence regarding the value of vitamin D supplementation in patients with HF remains “inconclusive” and may be harmful when taken with HF medications such as digoxin, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics.
• Routine thiamine supplementation in patients with HF and without clinically significant thiamine deficiency may not be efficacious and should be avoided.
• Research on alcohol varies, with some data showing that drinking low-to-moderate amounts (one to two drinks per day) may help prevent HF, while habitual drinking or consuming higher amounts is known to contribute to HF.
• The literature is mixed on vitamin E. It may have some benefit in reducing the risk of HF with preserved ejection fraction but has also been associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization.
• Coenzyme Q10 (Co-Q10), commonly taken as a dietary supplement, may help improve HF class, symptoms, and quality of life, but it also may interact with antihypertensive and anticoagulant medication. Co-Q10 remains of “uncertain” value in HF at this time. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed before any definitive conclusion can be reached.
• Hawthorn, a flowering shrub, has been shown in some studies to increase exercise tolerance and improve HF symptoms such as fatigue. Yet it also has the potential to worsen HF, and there is conflicting research about whether it interacts with digoxin.
• The herbal supplement blue cohosh, from the root of a flowering plant found in hardwood forests, could cause tachycardia, high blood pressure, chest pain, and increased blood glucose. It may also decrease the effect of medications taken to treat high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, they noted.
• Lily of the Valley, the root, stems, and flower of which are used in supplements, has long been used in mild HF because it contains active chemicals similar to digoxin. But when taken with digoxin, it could lead to hypokalemia.

In an AHA news release, Dr. Chow said, “Overall, more quality research and well-powered randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand the risks and benefits” of CAM therapies for HF.

“This scientific statement provides critical information to health care professionals who treat people with heart failure and may be used as a resource for consumers about the potential benefit and harm associated with complementary and alternative medicine products,” Dr. Chow added.

The writing group encourages health care professionals to routinely ask their HF patients about their use of CAM therapies. They also say pharmacists should be included in the multidisciplinary health care team to provide consultations about the use of CAM therapies for HF patients.

The scientific statement does not include cannabis or traditional Chinese medicine, which have also been used in HF.

In 2020, the AHA published a separate scientific statement on the use of medical marijuana and recreational cannabis on cardiovascular health, as reported previously by this news organization.

The scientific statement on CAM for HF was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Clinical Pharmacology Committee and Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

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

A new study has provided further reassurance on questions about the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with statins.

The Danish case-control study, which compared statin use in 2,164 case patients with ICH and in 86,255 matched control persons, found that current statin use was associated with a lower risk of having a first ICH and that the risk was further reduced with longer duration of statin use.

The study also showed that statin use was linked to a lower risk of ICH in the more superficial lobar areas of the brain and in the deeper, nonlobar locations. There was no difference in the magnitude of risk reduction between the two locations.

“Although this study is observational, I feel these data are strong, and the results are reassuring. It certainly does not suggest any increased risk of ICH with statins,” senior author David Gaist, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said in an interview.

“On the contrary, it indicates a lower risk, which seems to be independent of the location of the bleed.”

The study was published online in Neurology.

The authors note that statins effectively reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events and ischemic stroke in high-risk populations, but early randomized trials raised concerns of an increased risk of ICH among statin users who have a history of stroke.

Subsequent observational studies, including four meta-analyses, included patients with and those without prior stroke. The results were inconsistent, although most found no increase in bleeding. More recent studies have found a lower risk of ICH among statin users; the risk was inversely associated with the duration and intensity of statin treatment.

However, the researchers point out that few studies have assessed the association between statin use and the location of ICH. Hemorrhages that occur in the lobar region of the brain and those that occur in the nonlobar areas can have different pathophysiologies. Arteriolosclerosis, which is strongly associated with hypertension, is a common histologic finding in patients with ICH, regardless of hemorrhage location, while cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with lobar but not nonlobar ICH.

The current study was conducted to look more closely at the relationship between statin use and hematoma location as a reflection of differences in the underlying pathophysiologies of lobar versus nonlobar ICH.

The researchers used Danish registries to identify all first-ever cases of spontaneous ICH that occurred between 2009 and 2018 in persons older than 55 years in the Southern Denmark region. Patients with traumatic ICH or ICH related to vascular malformations and tumors were excluded.

These cases were verified through medical records. ICH diagnoses were classified as having a lobar or nonlobar location, and patients were matched for age, sex, and calendar year to general population control persons. The nationwide prescription registry was also analyzed to ascertain use of statins and other medications.

The study included 989 patients with lobar ICH who were matched to 39,500 control persons and 1,175 patients with nonlobar ICH who were matched to 46,755 control persons.

Results showed that current statin use was associated with a 16%-17% relative reduction in ICH risk. There was no difference with respect to ICH location.

For lobar ICH, statin use showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98); for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.98).

Longer duration of statin use was associated with a greater reduction in risk of ICH; use for more than 5 years was associated with a relative reduction of ICH of 33%-38%, again with no difference with regard to ICH location.

For lobar ICH, statin use for more than 5 years showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87); and for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48-0.80).

“We suspected that statins may have more of an effect in reducing nonlobar ICH, as this type is considered to be more associated with arteriosclerosis, compared with lobar ICH,” Dr. Gaist explained. “But we didn’t find that. We found that taking statins was associated with a similar reduction in risk of both lobar and nonlobar ICH.”

Although amyloid angiopathy can contribute to lobar ICH, arteriosclerosis is still involved in the majority of cases, he noted. He cited a recent population-based U.K. study that showed that while histologically verified CAA was present in 58% of patients with a lobar ICH, most also had evidence of arteriosclerosis, with only 13% having isolated CAA pathology.

“If statins exert their effect on reducing ICH by reducing arteriosclerosis, which is likely, then this observation of arteriosclerosis pathology being prevalent in both lobar and nonlobar ICH locations would explain our results,” Dr. Gaist commented.

“Strengths of our study include the large numbers involved and the fact that the patients are unselected. We tried to find everyone who had had a first ICH in a well-defined region of Denmark, so issues of selection are less of a concern than in some other studies,” he noted.

He also pointed out that all the ICH diagnoses were verified from medical records and that in a substudy, brain scans were evaluated, with investigators masked to clinical data to evaluate the location and characteristics of the hematoma. In addition, data on statin use were collected prospectively from a nationwide prescription registry.
 

Interaction with antihypertensives, anticoagulants?

Other results from the study suggest a possible interaction between statin use and antihypertensive and anticoagulant drugs.

Data showed that the lower ICH risk was restricted to patients who received statins and antihypertensive drugs concurrently. Conversely, only patients who were not concurrently taking anticoagulants had a lower risk of ICH in association with statin use.

Dr. Gaist suggested that the lack of a reduction in ICH with statins among patients taking anticoagulants could be because the increased risk of ICH with anticoagulants was stronger than the reduced risk with statins.

Regarding the fact that the reduced risk of ICH with statins was only observed among individuals who were also taking antihypertensive medication, Dr. Gaist noted that because hypertension is such an important risk factor for ICH, “it may be that to get the true benefit of statins, patients have to have their hypertension controlled.”

However, an alternative explanation could that the finding is a result of “healthy adherer” bias, in which people who take antihypertensive medication and follow a healthy lifestyle as advised would be more likely to take statins.

“The observational nature of our study does not allow us to determine the extent to which associations are causal,” the authors say.

Dr. Gaist also noted that an important caveat in this study is that they focused on individuals who had had a first ICH.

“This data does not inform us about those who have already had an ICH and are taking statins. But we are planning to look at this in our next study,” he said.

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Gaist has received speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer unrelated to this work.

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

A new study has provided further reassurance on questions about the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with statins.

The Danish case-control study, which compared statin use in 2,164 case patients with ICH and in 86,255 matched control persons, found that current statin use was associated with a lower risk of having a first ICH and that the risk was further reduced with longer duration of statin use.

The study also showed that statin use was linked to a lower risk of ICH in the more superficial lobar areas of the brain and in the deeper, nonlobar locations. There was no difference in the magnitude of risk reduction between the two locations.

“Although this study is observational, I feel these data are strong, and the results are reassuring. It certainly does not suggest any increased risk of ICH with statins,” senior author David Gaist, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said in an interview.

“On the contrary, it indicates a lower risk, which seems to be independent of the location of the bleed.”

The study was published online in Neurology.

The authors note that statins effectively reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events and ischemic stroke in high-risk populations, but early randomized trials raised concerns of an increased risk of ICH among statin users who have a history of stroke.

Subsequent observational studies, including four meta-analyses, included patients with and those without prior stroke. The results were inconsistent, although most found no increase in bleeding. More recent studies have found a lower risk of ICH among statin users; the risk was inversely associated with the duration and intensity of statin treatment.

However, the researchers point out that few studies have assessed the association between statin use and the location of ICH. Hemorrhages that occur in the lobar region of the brain and those that occur in the nonlobar areas can have different pathophysiologies. Arteriolosclerosis, which is strongly associated with hypertension, is a common histologic finding in patients with ICH, regardless of hemorrhage location, while cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with lobar but not nonlobar ICH.

The current study was conducted to look more closely at the relationship between statin use and hematoma location as a reflection of differences in the underlying pathophysiologies of lobar versus nonlobar ICH.

The researchers used Danish registries to identify all first-ever cases of spontaneous ICH that occurred between 2009 and 2018 in persons older than 55 years in the Southern Denmark region. Patients with traumatic ICH or ICH related to vascular malformations and tumors were excluded.

These cases were verified through medical records. ICH diagnoses were classified as having a lobar or nonlobar location, and patients were matched for age, sex, and calendar year to general population control persons. The nationwide prescription registry was also analyzed to ascertain use of statins and other medications.

The study included 989 patients with lobar ICH who were matched to 39,500 control persons and 1,175 patients with nonlobar ICH who were matched to 46,755 control persons.

Results showed that current statin use was associated with a 16%-17% relative reduction in ICH risk. There was no difference with respect to ICH location.

For lobar ICH, statin use showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98); for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.98).

Longer duration of statin use was associated with a greater reduction in risk of ICH; use for more than 5 years was associated with a relative reduction of ICH of 33%-38%, again with no difference with regard to ICH location.

For lobar ICH, statin use for more than 5 years showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87); and for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48-0.80).

“We suspected that statins may have more of an effect in reducing nonlobar ICH, as this type is considered to be more associated with arteriosclerosis, compared with lobar ICH,” Dr. Gaist explained. “But we didn’t find that. We found that taking statins was associated with a similar reduction in risk of both lobar and nonlobar ICH.”

Although amyloid angiopathy can contribute to lobar ICH, arteriosclerosis is still involved in the majority of cases, he noted. He cited a recent population-based U.K. study that showed that while histologically verified CAA was present in 58% of patients with a lobar ICH, most also had evidence of arteriosclerosis, with only 13% having isolated CAA pathology.

“If statins exert their effect on reducing ICH by reducing arteriosclerosis, which is likely, then this observation of arteriosclerosis pathology being prevalent in both lobar and nonlobar ICH locations would explain our results,” Dr. Gaist commented.

“Strengths of our study include the large numbers involved and the fact that the patients are unselected. We tried to find everyone who had had a first ICH in a well-defined region of Denmark, so issues of selection are less of a concern than in some other studies,” he noted.

He also pointed out that all the ICH diagnoses were verified from medical records and that in a substudy, brain scans were evaluated, with investigators masked to clinical data to evaluate the location and characteristics of the hematoma. In addition, data on statin use were collected prospectively from a nationwide prescription registry.
 

Interaction with antihypertensives, anticoagulants?

Other results from the study suggest a possible interaction between statin use and antihypertensive and anticoagulant drugs.

Data showed that the lower ICH risk was restricted to patients who received statins and antihypertensive drugs concurrently. Conversely, only patients who were not concurrently taking anticoagulants had a lower risk of ICH in association with statin use.

Dr. Gaist suggested that the lack of a reduction in ICH with statins among patients taking anticoagulants could be because the increased risk of ICH with anticoagulants was stronger than the reduced risk with statins.

Regarding the fact that the reduced risk of ICH with statins was only observed among individuals who were also taking antihypertensive medication, Dr. Gaist noted that because hypertension is such an important risk factor for ICH, “it may be that to get the true benefit of statins, patients have to have their hypertension controlled.”

However, an alternative explanation could that the finding is a result of “healthy adherer” bias, in which people who take antihypertensive medication and follow a healthy lifestyle as advised would be more likely to take statins.

“The observational nature of our study does not allow us to determine the extent to which associations are causal,” the authors say.

Dr. Gaist also noted that an important caveat in this study is that they focused on individuals who had had a first ICH.

“This data does not inform us about those who have already had an ICH and are taking statins. But we are planning to look at this in our next study,” he said.

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Gaist has received speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer unrelated to this work.

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

A new study has provided further reassurance on questions about the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with statins.

The Danish case-control study, which compared statin use in 2,164 case patients with ICH and in 86,255 matched control persons, found that current statin use was associated with a lower risk of having a first ICH and that the risk was further reduced with longer duration of statin use.

The study also showed that statin use was linked to a lower risk of ICH in the more superficial lobar areas of the brain and in the deeper, nonlobar locations. There was no difference in the magnitude of risk reduction between the two locations.

“Although this study is observational, I feel these data are strong, and the results are reassuring. It certainly does not suggest any increased risk of ICH with statins,” senior author David Gaist, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said in an interview.

“On the contrary, it indicates a lower risk, which seems to be independent of the location of the bleed.”

The study was published online in Neurology.

The authors note that statins effectively reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events and ischemic stroke in high-risk populations, but early randomized trials raised concerns of an increased risk of ICH among statin users who have a history of stroke.

Subsequent observational studies, including four meta-analyses, included patients with and those without prior stroke. The results were inconsistent, although most found no increase in bleeding. More recent studies have found a lower risk of ICH among statin users; the risk was inversely associated with the duration and intensity of statin treatment.

However, the researchers point out that few studies have assessed the association between statin use and the location of ICH. Hemorrhages that occur in the lobar region of the brain and those that occur in the nonlobar areas can have different pathophysiologies. Arteriolosclerosis, which is strongly associated with hypertension, is a common histologic finding in patients with ICH, regardless of hemorrhage location, while cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with lobar but not nonlobar ICH.

The current study was conducted to look more closely at the relationship between statin use and hematoma location as a reflection of differences in the underlying pathophysiologies of lobar versus nonlobar ICH.

The researchers used Danish registries to identify all first-ever cases of spontaneous ICH that occurred between 2009 and 2018 in persons older than 55 years in the Southern Denmark region. Patients with traumatic ICH or ICH related to vascular malformations and tumors were excluded.

These cases were verified through medical records. ICH diagnoses were classified as having a lobar or nonlobar location, and patients were matched for age, sex, and calendar year to general population control persons. The nationwide prescription registry was also analyzed to ascertain use of statins and other medications.

The study included 989 patients with lobar ICH who were matched to 39,500 control persons and 1,175 patients with nonlobar ICH who were matched to 46,755 control persons.

Results showed that current statin use was associated with a 16%-17% relative reduction in ICH risk. There was no difference with respect to ICH location.

For lobar ICH, statin use showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98); for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.98).

Longer duration of statin use was associated with a greater reduction in risk of ICH; use for more than 5 years was associated with a relative reduction of ICH of 33%-38%, again with no difference with regard to ICH location.

For lobar ICH, statin use for more than 5 years showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87); and for nonlobar ICH, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48-0.80).

“We suspected that statins may have more of an effect in reducing nonlobar ICH, as this type is considered to be more associated with arteriosclerosis, compared with lobar ICH,” Dr. Gaist explained. “But we didn’t find that. We found that taking statins was associated with a similar reduction in risk of both lobar and nonlobar ICH.”

Although amyloid angiopathy can contribute to lobar ICH, arteriosclerosis is still involved in the majority of cases, he noted. He cited a recent population-based U.K. study that showed that while histologically verified CAA was present in 58% of patients with a lobar ICH, most also had evidence of arteriosclerosis, with only 13% having isolated CAA pathology.

“If statins exert their effect on reducing ICH by reducing arteriosclerosis, which is likely, then this observation of arteriosclerosis pathology being prevalent in both lobar and nonlobar ICH locations would explain our results,” Dr. Gaist commented.

“Strengths of our study include the large numbers involved and the fact that the patients are unselected. We tried to find everyone who had had a first ICH in a well-defined region of Denmark, so issues of selection are less of a concern than in some other studies,” he noted.

He also pointed out that all the ICH diagnoses were verified from medical records and that in a substudy, brain scans were evaluated, with investigators masked to clinical data to evaluate the location and characteristics of the hematoma. In addition, data on statin use were collected prospectively from a nationwide prescription registry.
 

Interaction with antihypertensives, anticoagulants?

Other results from the study suggest a possible interaction between statin use and antihypertensive and anticoagulant drugs.

Data showed that the lower ICH risk was restricted to patients who received statins and antihypertensive drugs concurrently. Conversely, only patients who were not concurrently taking anticoagulants had a lower risk of ICH in association with statin use.

Dr. Gaist suggested that the lack of a reduction in ICH with statins among patients taking anticoagulants could be because the increased risk of ICH with anticoagulants was stronger than the reduced risk with statins.

Regarding the fact that the reduced risk of ICH with statins was only observed among individuals who were also taking antihypertensive medication, Dr. Gaist noted that because hypertension is such an important risk factor for ICH, “it may be that to get the true benefit of statins, patients have to have their hypertension controlled.”

However, an alternative explanation could that the finding is a result of “healthy adherer” bias, in which people who take antihypertensive medication and follow a healthy lifestyle as advised would be more likely to take statins.

“The observational nature of our study does not allow us to determine the extent to which associations are causal,” the authors say.

Dr. Gaist also noted that an important caveat in this study is that they focused on individuals who had had a first ICH.

“This data does not inform us about those who have already had an ICH and are taking statins. But we are planning to look at this in our next study,” he said.

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Gaist has received speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer unrelated to this work.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most of us have two voice changes in our lifetime: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.

But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.

This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.

Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.

“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.

Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.

You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.

Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.

“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.

Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.

For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”

Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.

“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”

Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.

“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.

“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did. 

“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”

So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
 

Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)

Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.

Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.

Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
 

Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS) 

For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.

With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”

Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.

Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
 

Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)

No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.

“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”

Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.

The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
 

Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)

Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.

Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
 

Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)

Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.

ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
 

And that’s only the beginning

Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.

“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.” 

The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.

“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.

Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.

But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.

Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”

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

Most of us have two voice changes in our lifetime: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.

But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.

This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.

Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.

“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.

Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.

You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.

Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.

“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.

Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.

For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”

Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.

“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”

Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.

“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.

“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did. 

“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”

So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
 

Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)

Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.

Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.

Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
 

Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS) 

For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.

With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”

Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.

Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
 

Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)

No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.

“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”

Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.

The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
 

Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)

Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.

Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
 

Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)

Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.

ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
 

And that’s only the beginning

Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.

“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.” 

The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.

“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.

Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.

But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.

Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”

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

Most of us have two voice changes in our lifetime: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.

But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.

This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.

Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.

“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.

Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.

You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.

Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.

“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.

Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.

For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”

Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.

“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”

Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.

“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.

“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did. 

“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”

So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
 

Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)

Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.

Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.

Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
 

Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS) 

For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.

With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”

Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.

Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
 

Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)

No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.

“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”

Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.

The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
 

Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)

Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.

Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
 

Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)

Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.

ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
 

And that’s only the beginning

Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.

“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.” 

The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.

“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.

Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.

But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.

Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”

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