Cardiology

Most hospitals in the United States have yet to transition from conventional to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays, despite their greater sensitivity for myocardial injury, a new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) registry study indicates.

hs-cTn assays have been used in routine clinical practice in Europe, Canada, and Australia since 2010, but the first such assay did not gain approval in the United States until 2017. Although single-center studies have examined their efficacy and potential downstream consequences, few data exist on hs-cTn implementation nationally, explained study author Cian McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and will be presented Nov. 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For the study, Dr. McCarthy and colleagues examined 550 hospitals participating in the NCDR Chest Pain-MI registry from January 2019 through September 2021.

Of the 251,000 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 64 years; 41.5% female), 155,049 had a non–ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 15,989 had unstable angina, and 79,962 had low-risk chest pain.

The hs-cTn assays included Roche Diagnostic’s Elecsys Gen5 STAT troponin T assay (23%); Abbott’s ARCHITECT STAT (17%); Beckman Coulter’s ACCESS (21%); and Siemens’ Atellica IM (18%), Dimension VISTA (14%), Dimension EXL (4%), and ADVIA Centaur (2%) troponin I assays.

During the study period, 11.5% of patients were evaluated with hs-cTn assays and the remainder were evaluated with conventional troponin assays. These patients were slightly older (65.0 vs. 64.0 years), more commonly White (83.1% vs. 79.9%), less likely to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (8.9% vs. 10.0%), and less likely to be uninsured (6.8% vs. 8.3%; P for all < .001).

A slightly higher proportion of patients evaluated with hs-cTn assays were diagnosed with unstable angina (7.1% vs. 6.3%), a lower proportion with NSTEMI (61.1% vs. 61.9%), and a similar proportion with low-risk chest pain (31.8% vs. 31.9%) compared with those evaluated by conventional troponin assays.

Implementation, defined as at least 25% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn in each quarter, increased from 3.3% in the first quarter of 2019 to 32.6% in the third quarter of 2021 (P trend < .001).

Using higher implementation thresholds of at least 50% and 75% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn, the prevalence in 2021 was 28.9% and 24.7%, respectively.

“So still, the majority of the hospitals by the end of the third quarter 2021 were not using these assays,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Potential explanations for the slow uptake are that prospective comparative effectiveness trials of These assays have predominantly been in international populations and real-world data on U.S. implementation have been limited to integrated health networks at academic institutions.

Approval of several assays was also delayed and the study data cut off just before the October publication of the 2021 AHA/ACC Chest Pain guideline. “So, whether the chest pain guideline with the new class 1 recommendation for hs-cTn will lead to further uptake is something that will need to be looked at in the future,” he said.
 

Downstream testing

In adjusted analyses, hs-cTn use was associated with more echocardiography among patients with non-ST elevation–acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (82.4% vs. 75.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.73), but not among those with low-risk chest pain (19.7% vs. 19.4%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22) compared with conventional cTn assays.

Importantly, hs-cTn was not associated with a difference in stress testing or CT coronary angiography utilization.

Use of hs-cTn was associated with lower use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with low-risk chest pain (3.7% vs. 4.5%; OR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) but similar use for NSTE-ACS (96.3% vs. 95.8%; OR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.82-1.19).

Among patients with NSTE-ACS, there also was no difference in revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (52.7% vs. 52.3%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04) or coronary bypass graft surgery (9.4% vs. 9.1%; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18).

PCI (0.1% vs. 0.2%; P = .05) and bypass graft surgery (both 0.1%) were uncommon among patients with low-risk chest pain.

In-hospital mortality was similar among patients with low-risk chest pain evaluated using hs-cTn assays vs. conventional troponin assays (0% vs. 0.02%; P = .16) and among patients with NSTE-ACS (2.8% vs. 3.2%; OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.87-1.11).

Length of stay was slightly shorter with hs-cTn use for patients with low-risk chest pain (median, 5.8 vs. 6.2 hours; P < .001) and patients with NSTE-ACS (66.9 vs. 67.8 hours; P = .01).

“There was always a concern that maybe high-sensitivity cardiac troponin would dramatically increase testing and could even increase length of stay, but I think these data are reassuring, in that this study suggests high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is associated with a small reduction in length of stay and possibly more appropriate use of testing with echocardiography in STEMI and a reduction in invasive angiography in low-risk patients,” Dr. McCarthy said. “But the majority of hospitals haven’t implemented the assay.”

The authors pointed out that because registry entry of patients with low-risk chest pain and unstable angina is optional for participating sites, the percentage of patients with NSTEMI is higher than in typical chest pain analyses. This higher pretest probability for MI may thus affect post-test accuracy for a true positive result. “That stated, this is the exact scenario where higher sensitivity might be associated with favorable impact on utilization.”

Among other limitations: There was the potential for unmeasured confounders, the accuracy of diagnoses could not be confirmed, patients with type 2 MI were excluded from the registry, and post-discharge safety was not assessed.

“These data indicate further opportunities to more widely and effectively implement hs-cTn in the U.S. hospitals persist that could optimize care for patients with possible or definitive ACS,” Dr. McCarthy and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. McCarthy is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and has received consulting income from Abbott Laboratories.

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

Most hospitals in the United States have yet to transition from conventional to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays, despite their greater sensitivity for myocardial injury, a new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) registry study indicates.

hs-cTn assays have been used in routine clinical practice in Europe, Canada, and Australia since 2010, but the first such assay did not gain approval in the United States until 2017. Although single-center studies have examined their efficacy and potential downstream consequences, few data exist on hs-cTn implementation nationally, explained study author Cian McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and will be presented Nov. 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For the study, Dr. McCarthy and colleagues examined 550 hospitals participating in the NCDR Chest Pain-MI registry from January 2019 through September 2021.

Of the 251,000 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 64 years; 41.5% female), 155,049 had a non–ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 15,989 had unstable angina, and 79,962 had low-risk chest pain.

The hs-cTn assays included Roche Diagnostic’s Elecsys Gen5 STAT troponin T assay (23%); Abbott’s ARCHITECT STAT (17%); Beckman Coulter’s ACCESS (21%); and Siemens’ Atellica IM (18%), Dimension VISTA (14%), Dimension EXL (4%), and ADVIA Centaur (2%) troponin I assays.

During the study period, 11.5% of patients were evaluated with hs-cTn assays and the remainder were evaluated with conventional troponin assays. These patients were slightly older (65.0 vs. 64.0 years), more commonly White (83.1% vs. 79.9%), less likely to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (8.9% vs. 10.0%), and less likely to be uninsured (6.8% vs. 8.3%; P for all < .001).

A slightly higher proportion of patients evaluated with hs-cTn assays were diagnosed with unstable angina (7.1% vs. 6.3%), a lower proportion with NSTEMI (61.1% vs. 61.9%), and a similar proportion with low-risk chest pain (31.8% vs. 31.9%) compared with those evaluated by conventional troponin assays.

Implementation, defined as at least 25% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn in each quarter, increased from 3.3% in the first quarter of 2019 to 32.6% in the third quarter of 2021 (P trend < .001).

Using higher implementation thresholds of at least 50% and 75% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn, the prevalence in 2021 was 28.9% and 24.7%, respectively.

“So still, the majority of the hospitals by the end of the third quarter 2021 were not using these assays,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Potential explanations for the slow uptake are that prospective comparative effectiveness trials of These assays have predominantly been in international populations and real-world data on U.S. implementation have been limited to integrated health networks at academic institutions.

Approval of several assays was also delayed and the study data cut off just before the October publication of the 2021 AHA/ACC Chest Pain guideline. “So, whether the chest pain guideline with the new class 1 recommendation for hs-cTn will lead to further uptake is something that will need to be looked at in the future,” he said.
 

Downstream testing

In adjusted analyses, hs-cTn use was associated with more echocardiography among patients with non-ST elevation–acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (82.4% vs. 75.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.73), but not among those with low-risk chest pain (19.7% vs. 19.4%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22) compared with conventional cTn assays.

Importantly, hs-cTn was not associated with a difference in stress testing or CT coronary angiography utilization.

Use of hs-cTn was associated with lower use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with low-risk chest pain (3.7% vs. 4.5%; OR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) but similar use for NSTE-ACS (96.3% vs. 95.8%; OR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.82-1.19).

Among patients with NSTE-ACS, there also was no difference in revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (52.7% vs. 52.3%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04) or coronary bypass graft surgery (9.4% vs. 9.1%; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18).

PCI (0.1% vs. 0.2%; P = .05) and bypass graft surgery (both 0.1%) were uncommon among patients with low-risk chest pain.

In-hospital mortality was similar among patients with low-risk chest pain evaluated using hs-cTn assays vs. conventional troponin assays (0% vs. 0.02%; P = .16) and among patients with NSTE-ACS (2.8% vs. 3.2%; OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.87-1.11).

Length of stay was slightly shorter with hs-cTn use for patients with low-risk chest pain (median, 5.8 vs. 6.2 hours; P < .001) and patients with NSTE-ACS (66.9 vs. 67.8 hours; P = .01).

“There was always a concern that maybe high-sensitivity cardiac troponin would dramatically increase testing and could even increase length of stay, but I think these data are reassuring, in that this study suggests high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is associated with a small reduction in length of stay and possibly more appropriate use of testing with echocardiography in STEMI and a reduction in invasive angiography in low-risk patients,” Dr. McCarthy said. “But the majority of hospitals haven’t implemented the assay.”

The authors pointed out that because registry entry of patients with low-risk chest pain and unstable angina is optional for participating sites, the percentage of patients with NSTEMI is higher than in typical chest pain analyses. This higher pretest probability for MI may thus affect post-test accuracy for a true positive result. “That stated, this is the exact scenario where higher sensitivity might be associated with favorable impact on utilization.”

Among other limitations: There was the potential for unmeasured confounders, the accuracy of diagnoses could not be confirmed, patients with type 2 MI were excluded from the registry, and post-discharge safety was not assessed.

“These data indicate further opportunities to more widely and effectively implement hs-cTn in the U.S. hospitals persist that could optimize care for patients with possible or definitive ACS,” Dr. McCarthy and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. McCarthy is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and has received consulting income from Abbott Laboratories.

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

Most hospitals in the United States have yet to transition from conventional to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays, despite their greater sensitivity for myocardial injury, a new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) registry study indicates.

hs-cTn assays have been used in routine clinical practice in Europe, Canada, and Australia since 2010, but the first such assay did not gain approval in the United States until 2017. Although single-center studies have examined their efficacy and potential downstream consequences, few data exist on hs-cTn implementation nationally, explained study author Cian McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and will be presented Nov. 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For the study, Dr. McCarthy and colleagues examined 550 hospitals participating in the NCDR Chest Pain-MI registry from January 2019 through September 2021.

Of the 251,000 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 64 years; 41.5% female), 155,049 had a non–ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 15,989 had unstable angina, and 79,962 had low-risk chest pain.

The hs-cTn assays included Roche Diagnostic’s Elecsys Gen5 STAT troponin T assay (23%); Abbott’s ARCHITECT STAT (17%); Beckman Coulter’s ACCESS (21%); and Siemens’ Atellica IM (18%), Dimension VISTA (14%), Dimension EXL (4%), and ADVIA Centaur (2%) troponin I assays.

During the study period, 11.5% of patients were evaluated with hs-cTn assays and the remainder were evaluated with conventional troponin assays. These patients were slightly older (65.0 vs. 64.0 years), more commonly White (83.1% vs. 79.9%), less likely to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (8.9% vs. 10.0%), and less likely to be uninsured (6.8% vs. 8.3%; P for all < .001).

A slightly higher proportion of patients evaluated with hs-cTn assays were diagnosed with unstable angina (7.1% vs. 6.3%), a lower proportion with NSTEMI (61.1% vs. 61.9%), and a similar proportion with low-risk chest pain (31.8% vs. 31.9%) compared with those evaluated by conventional troponin assays.

Implementation, defined as at least 25% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn in each quarter, increased from 3.3% in the first quarter of 2019 to 32.6% in the third quarter of 2021 (P trend < .001).

Using higher implementation thresholds of at least 50% and 75% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn, the prevalence in 2021 was 28.9% and 24.7%, respectively.

“So still, the majority of the hospitals by the end of the third quarter 2021 were not using these assays,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Potential explanations for the slow uptake are that prospective comparative effectiveness trials of These assays have predominantly been in international populations and real-world data on U.S. implementation have been limited to integrated health networks at academic institutions.

Approval of several assays was also delayed and the study data cut off just before the October publication of the 2021 AHA/ACC Chest Pain guideline. “So, whether the chest pain guideline with the new class 1 recommendation for hs-cTn will lead to further uptake is something that will need to be looked at in the future,” he said.
 

Downstream testing

In adjusted analyses, hs-cTn use was associated with more echocardiography among patients with non-ST elevation–acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (82.4% vs. 75.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.73), but not among those with low-risk chest pain (19.7% vs. 19.4%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22) compared with conventional cTn assays.

Importantly, hs-cTn was not associated with a difference in stress testing or CT coronary angiography utilization.

Use of hs-cTn was associated with lower use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with low-risk chest pain (3.7% vs. 4.5%; OR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) but similar use for NSTE-ACS (96.3% vs. 95.8%; OR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.82-1.19).

Among patients with NSTE-ACS, there also was no difference in revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (52.7% vs. 52.3%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04) or coronary bypass graft surgery (9.4% vs. 9.1%; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18).

PCI (0.1% vs. 0.2%; P = .05) and bypass graft surgery (both 0.1%) were uncommon among patients with low-risk chest pain.

In-hospital mortality was similar among patients with low-risk chest pain evaluated using hs-cTn assays vs. conventional troponin assays (0% vs. 0.02%; P = .16) and among patients with NSTE-ACS (2.8% vs. 3.2%; OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.87-1.11).

Length of stay was slightly shorter with hs-cTn use for patients with low-risk chest pain (median, 5.8 vs. 6.2 hours; P < .001) and patients with NSTE-ACS (66.9 vs. 67.8 hours; P = .01).

“There was always a concern that maybe high-sensitivity cardiac troponin would dramatically increase testing and could even increase length of stay, but I think these data are reassuring, in that this study suggests high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is associated with a small reduction in length of stay and possibly more appropriate use of testing with echocardiography in STEMI and a reduction in invasive angiography in low-risk patients,” Dr. McCarthy said. “But the majority of hospitals haven’t implemented the assay.”

The authors pointed out that because registry entry of patients with low-risk chest pain and unstable angina is optional for participating sites, the percentage of patients with NSTEMI is higher than in typical chest pain analyses. This higher pretest probability for MI may thus affect post-test accuracy for a true positive result. “That stated, this is the exact scenario where higher sensitivity might be associated with favorable impact on utilization.”

Among other limitations: There was the potential for unmeasured confounders, the accuracy of diagnoses could not be confirmed, patients with type 2 MI were excluded from the registry, and post-discharge safety was not assessed.

“These data indicate further opportunities to more widely and effectively implement hs-cTn in the U.S. hospitals persist that could optimize care for patients with possible or definitive ACS,” Dr. McCarthy and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. McCarthy is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and has received consulting income from Abbott Laboratories.

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

Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.

Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.

These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).

A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).

Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.

Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.

According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”

This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.

The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.

“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
 

Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?

Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.

However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.

The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.

VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.

In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.

The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.

Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.

The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).

At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.

Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.

In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.

Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.

The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”

“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.

The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.

Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.

These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).

A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).

Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.

Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.

According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”

This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.

The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.

“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
 

Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?

Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.

However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.

The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.

VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.

In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.

The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.

Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.

The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).

At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.

Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.

In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.

Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.

The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”

“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.

The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.

Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.

These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).

A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).

Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.

Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.

According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”

This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.

The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.

“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
 

Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?

Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.

However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.

The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.

VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.

In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.

The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.

Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.

The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).

At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.

Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.

In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.

Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.

The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”

“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.

The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

A commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) has the lowest risk of bleeding, say researchers. Used to prevent strokes in those with atrial fibrillation (AFib), DOACs have recently become more common than warfarin, the previous standard treatment, as they do not require as much follow-up monitoring – which was “particularly valuable” during the COVID-19 pandemic – and have “less risk” of side effects, highlighted the authors of a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, the authors explained that, although current guidelines recommend using DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, “head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.” So, they set out to try and fill this evidence gap by doing a large-scale comparison between all DOACs – apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban – in routine clinical practice.

Wallis Lau, PhD, University College London, and co–lead author, said: “Direct oral anticoagulants have been prescribed with increasing frequency worldwide in recent years, but evidence comparing them directly has been limited.”
 

One drug stood out

For the multinational population-based cohort study the researchers compared the efficacy and risk of side effects for the four most common DOACs. They reviewed data – from five standardized electronic health care databases that covered 221 million people in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States – of 527,226 patients who had been newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2019, and who had received a new DOAC prescription. The study included 281,320 apixaban users, 61,008 dabigatran users, 12,722 edoxaban users, and 172,176 rivaroxaban users.

Database-specific hazard ratios of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model.

In total, 9,530 ischemic stroke or systemic embolism events, 841 intercranial hemorrhage events, 8,319 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 1,476 deaths were identified over the study follow-up. The researchers found that all four drugs were comparable on outcomes for ischemic stroke, intercranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality.

However, they identified a difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, which they highlighted “is one of the most common and concerning side effects of DOACs.”

“Apixaban stood out as having lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,” said the authors, with a 19%-28% lower risk when compared directly with each of the other three DOACs. Specifically, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94), edoxaban (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79).

The researchers also highlighted that their findings held true when looking at data only from those aged over 80, and those with chronic kidney disease, two groups that are “often underrepresented” in clinical trials.
 

Apixaban may be preferable

The researchers concluded that, among patients with AFib, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality, compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

“Our results indicate that apixaban may be preferable to other blood thinners because of the lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of stroke, a finding that we hope will be supported by randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Lau.

However, he emphasized that, “as with all medications, potential risks and benefits can differ between people, so considering the full spectrum of outcomes and side effects will still be necessary for each individual patient.”

The authors all declared no conflicting interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) has the lowest risk of bleeding, say researchers. Used to prevent strokes in those with atrial fibrillation (AFib), DOACs have recently become more common than warfarin, the previous standard treatment, as they do not require as much follow-up monitoring – which was “particularly valuable” during the COVID-19 pandemic – and have “less risk” of side effects, highlighted the authors of a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, the authors explained that, although current guidelines recommend using DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, “head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.” So, they set out to try and fill this evidence gap by doing a large-scale comparison between all DOACs – apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban – in routine clinical practice.

Wallis Lau, PhD, University College London, and co–lead author, said: “Direct oral anticoagulants have been prescribed with increasing frequency worldwide in recent years, but evidence comparing them directly has been limited.”
 

One drug stood out

For the multinational population-based cohort study the researchers compared the efficacy and risk of side effects for the four most common DOACs. They reviewed data – from five standardized electronic health care databases that covered 221 million people in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States – of 527,226 patients who had been newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2019, and who had received a new DOAC prescription. The study included 281,320 apixaban users, 61,008 dabigatran users, 12,722 edoxaban users, and 172,176 rivaroxaban users.

Database-specific hazard ratios of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model.

In total, 9,530 ischemic stroke or systemic embolism events, 841 intercranial hemorrhage events, 8,319 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 1,476 deaths were identified over the study follow-up. The researchers found that all four drugs were comparable on outcomes for ischemic stroke, intercranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality.

However, they identified a difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, which they highlighted “is one of the most common and concerning side effects of DOACs.”

“Apixaban stood out as having lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,” said the authors, with a 19%-28% lower risk when compared directly with each of the other three DOACs. Specifically, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94), edoxaban (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79).

The researchers also highlighted that their findings held true when looking at data only from those aged over 80, and those with chronic kidney disease, two groups that are “often underrepresented” in clinical trials.
 

Apixaban may be preferable

The researchers concluded that, among patients with AFib, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality, compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

“Our results indicate that apixaban may be preferable to other blood thinners because of the lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of stroke, a finding that we hope will be supported by randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Lau.

However, he emphasized that, “as with all medications, potential risks and benefits can differ between people, so considering the full spectrum of outcomes and side effects will still be necessary for each individual patient.”

The authors all declared no conflicting interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) has the lowest risk of bleeding, say researchers. Used to prevent strokes in those with atrial fibrillation (AFib), DOACs have recently become more common than warfarin, the previous standard treatment, as they do not require as much follow-up monitoring – which was “particularly valuable” during the COVID-19 pandemic – and have “less risk” of side effects, highlighted the authors of a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, the authors explained that, although current guidelines recommend using DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, “head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.” So, they set out to try and fill this evidence gap by doing a large-scale comparison between all DOACs – apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban – in routine clinical practice.

Wallis Lau, PhD, University College London, and co–lead author, said: “Direct oral anticoagulants have been prescribed with increasing frequency worldwide in recent years, but evidence comparing them directly has been limited.”
 

One drug stood out

For the multinational population-based cohort study the researchers compared the efficacy and risk of side effects for the four most common DOACs. They reviewed data – from five standardized electronic health care databases that covered 221 million people in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States – of 527,226 patients who had been newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2019, and who had received a new DOAC prescription. The study included 281,320 apixaban users, 61,008 dabigatran users, 12,722 edoxaban users, and 172,176 rivaroxaban users.

Database-specific hazard ratios of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model.

In total, 9,530 ischemic stroke or systemic embolism events, 841 intercranial hemorrhage events, 8,319 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 1,476 deaths were identified over the study follow-up. The researchers found that all four drugs were comparable on outcomes for ischemic stroke, intercranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality.

However, they identified a difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, which they highlighted “is one of the most common and concerning side effects of DOACs.”

“Apixaban stood out as having lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,” said the authors, with a 19%-28% lower risk when compared directly with each of the other three DOACs. Specifically, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94), edoxaban (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79).

The researchers also highlighted that their findings held true when looking at data only from those aged over 80, and those with chronic kidney disease, two groups that are “often underrepresented” in clinical trials.
 

Apixaban may be preferable

The researchers concluded that, among patients with AFib, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality, compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

“Our results indicate that apixaban may be preferable to other blood thinners because of the lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of stroke, a finding that we hope will be supported by randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Lau.

However, he emphasized that, “as with all medications, potential risks and benefits can differ between people, so considering the full spectrum of outcomes and side effects will still be necessary for each individual patient.”

The authors all declared no conflicting interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Patients with the systemic sclerosis subtype of pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a distinctive bioactive metabolic profile associated with more severe disease than other subgroups, based on data from approximately 1,500 individuals.

The overall prognosis and therapeutic response for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH) tends to be worse than for patients with other types of PAH, such as idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), but the impact of different metabolite profiles among subtypes of disease has not been explored, wrote Mona Alotaibi, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

“Recently, metabolic dysregulation has been proposed as a key mechanism by which IPAH and SSc-PAH differ and could control such disparities,” they noted. Clarifying the molecular mechanisms of SSc-PAH could inform management and treatment, they added.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers sought to identify a bioactive lipid signature unique to SSc-PAH. They identified 400 patients with SSc-PAH and 1,082 with IPAH. An additional 100 patients with scleroderma but no PH and 44 patients with scleroderma who had PH were included for external validation. The mean ages of the patients with IPAH and SSc-PAH in the discovery and validation cohorts ranged from approximately 51 to 65 years; more than 75% of patients across the groups were women.

The researchers tested more than 700 bioactive lipid metabolites using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. They found five metabolites that distinguished SSc-PAH and IPAH that were significantly associated with markers of disease severity: 17-beta estradiol, novel Eic, nervonic acid, fatty acid esters of hydroxy fatty acids, and prostaglandin F2 alpha (PGF 2 alpha).

The biomarkers were increased in SSc-PAH patients compared to patients with SSC alone, which suggests that the biomarkers are related to PAH and not to scleroderma alone, the researchers noted.

In particular, nervonic acid was associated with worse functional capacity, in SSc-PAH patients, as were higher levels of 17-beta estradiol and prostaglandin F2 alpha. Also, 17-beta estradiol was associated with lower cardiac impairment (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) in SSc-PAH patients, but higher SVI in IPAH patients. PGF 2 alpha was associated with lower CI and SVI and higher pulmonary vascular resistance in SSc-PAH and IPAH combined.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to adjust for all potential confounders between IPAH and SSc-PAH, and the fact that a clear causal relationship could not be determined, the researchers noted. Inadequate statistical power to analyze SSc-PAH data was another limitation, and studies with detailed scleroderma phenotypes are needed to validate the results, they said.

However, the current study provides insight on the metabolic differences in SSc-PAH and the potential impact on disease pathology that may inform diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment strategies for SSc-PAH patients, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several individual investigators received support from organizations including the American Heart Association and the Chest Foundation, and from companies including Livanova, Equillium, Corvus, Bayer, and Actelion, but the authors had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with the systemic sclerosis subtype of pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a distinctive bioactive metabolic profile associated with more severe disease than other subgroups, based on data from approximately 1,500 individuals.

The overall prognosis and therapeutic response for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH) tends to be worse than for patients with other types of PAH, such as idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), but the impact of different metabolite profiles among subtypes of disease has not been explored, wrote Mona Alotaibi, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

“Recently, metabolic dysregulation has been proposed as a key mechanism by which IPAH and SSc-PAH differ and could control such disparities,” they noted. Clarifying the molecular mechanisms of SSc-PAH could inform management and treatment, they added.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers sought to identify a bioactive lipid signature unique to SSc-PAH. They identified 400 patients with SSc-PAH and 1,082 with IPAH. An additional 100 patients with scleroderma but no PH and 44 patients with scleroderma who had PH were included for external validation. The mean ages of the patients with IPAH and SSc-PAH in the discovery and validation cohorts ranged from approximately 51 to 65 years; more than 75% of patients across the groups were women.

The researchers tested more than 700 bioactive lipid metabolites using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. They found five metabolites that distinguished SSc-PAH and IPAH that were significantly associated with markers of disease severity: 17-beta estradiol, novel Eic, nervonic acid, fatty acid esters of hydroxy fatty acids, and prostaglandin F2 alpha (PGF 2 alpha).

The biomarkers were increased in SSc-PAH patients compared to patients with SSC alone, which suggests that the biomarkers are related to PAH and not to scleroderma alone, the researchers noted.

In particular, nervonic acid was associated with worse functional capacity, in SSc-PAH patients, as were higher levels of 17-beta estradiol and prostaglandin F2 alpha. Also, 17-beta estradiol was associated with lower cardiac impairment (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) in SSc-PAH patients, but higher SVI in IPAH patients. PGF 2 alpha was associated with lower CI and SVI and higher pulmonary vascular resistance in SSc-PAH and IPAH combined.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to adjust for all potential confounders between IPAH and SSc-PAH, and the fact that a clear causal relationship could not be determined, the researchers noted. Inadequate statistical power to analyze SSc-PAH data was another limitation, and studies with detailed scleroderma phenotypes are needed to validate the results, they said.

However, the current study provides insight on the metabolic differences in SSc-PAH and the potential impact on disease pathology that may inform diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment strategies for SSc-PAH patients, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several individual investigators received support from organizations including the American Heart Association and the Chest Foundation, and from companies including Livanova, Equillium, Corvus, Bayer, and Actelion, but the authors had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with the systemic sclerosis subtype of pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a distinctive bioactive metabolic profile associated with more severe disease than other subgroups, based on data from approximately 1,500 individuals.

The overall prognosis and therapeutic response for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH) tends to be worse than for patients with other types of PAH, such as idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), but the impact of different metabolite profiles among subtypes of disease has not been explored, wrote Mona Alotaibi, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

“Recently, metabolic dysregulation has been proposed as a key mechanism by which IPAH and SSc-PAH differ and could control such disparities,” they noted. Clarifying the molecular mechanisms of SSc-PAH could inform management and treatment, they added.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers sought to identify a bioactive lipid signature unique to SSc-PAH. They identified 400 patients with SSc-PAH and 1,082 with IPAH. An additional 100 patients with scleroderma but no PH and 44 patients with scleroderma who had PH were included for external validation. The mean ages of the patients with IPAH and SSc-PAH in the discovery and validation cohorts ranged from approximately 51 to 65 years; more than 75% of patients across the groups were women.

The researchers tested more than 700 bioactive lipid metabolites using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. They found five metabolites that distinguished SSc-PAH and IPAH that were significantly associated with markers of disease severity: 17-beta estradiol, novel Eic, nervonic acid, fatty acid esters of hydroxy fatty acids, and prostaglandin F2 alpha (PGF 2 alpha).

The biomarkers were increased in SSc-PAH patients compared to patients with SSC alone, which suggests that the biomarkers are related to PAH and not to scleroderma alone, the researchers noted.

In particular, nervonic acid was associated with worse functional capacity, in SSc-PAH patients, as were higher levels of 17-beta estradiol and prostaglandin F2 alpha. Also, 17-beta estradiol was associated with lower cardiac impairment (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) in SSc-PAH patients, but higher SVI in IPAH patients. PGF 2 alpha was associated with lower CI and SVI and higher pulmonary vascular resistance in SSc-PAH and IPAH combined.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to adjust for all potential confounders between IPAH and SSc-PAH, and the fact that a clear causal relationship could not be determined, the researchers noted. Inadequate statistical power to analyze SSc-PAH data was another limitation, and studies with detailed scleroderma phenotypes are needed to validate the results, they said.

However, the current study provides insight on the metabolic differences in SSc-PAH and the potential impact on disease pathology that may inform diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment strategies for SSc-PAH patients, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several individual investigators received support from organizations including the American Heart Association and the Chest Foundation, and from companies including Livanova, Equillium, Corvus, Bayer, and Actelion, but the authors had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Renal function should be considered when determining whether to pick ticagrelor-aspirin or clopidogrel-aspirin as the antiplatelet therapy for patients with minor stroke, according to new research.

The study, which was conducted in 202 centers in China and published in Annals of Internal Medicine, indicates that when patients had normal kidney function, ticagrelor-aspirin, compared with clopidogrel-aspirin, substantially reduced the risk for recurrent stroke within 90 days of follow-up.

However, this effect was not seen in patients with mildly, moderately or severely decreased kidney function.

Rates of severe or moderate bleeding did not differ substantially between the two treatments.
 

Results gleaned from CHANCE-2 data

The researchers, led by Anxin Wang, PhD, from Capital Medical University in Beijing, conducted a post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events-II) trial.

The trial included 6,378 patients who carried cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) loss-of-function (LOF) alleles who had experienced a minor stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Patients received either ticagrelor-aspirin or clopidogrel-aspirin, and their renal function was measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate. The authors listed as a limitation that no data were available on the presence of albuminuria or proteinuria.

The researchers investigated what effect renal function had on the efficacy and safety of the therapies.
 

Differences in the therapies

Clopidogrel-aspirin is often recommended for preventing stroke. It can reduce thrombotic risk in patients with impaired kidney function, the authors noted. Ticagrelor can provide greater, faster, and more consistent P2Y12 inhibition than clopidogrel, and evidence shows it is effective in preventing stroke recurrence, particularly in people carrying CYP2C19 LOF alleles.

When people have reduced kidney function, clopidogrel may be harder to clear than ticagrelor and there may be increased plasma concentrations, so function is important to consider when choosing an antiplatelet therapy, the authors wrote.
 

Choice may come down to cost

Geoffrey Barnes, MD, MSc, associate professor of vascular and cardiovascular medicine at University of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that there has been momentum toward ticagrelor as a more potent choice than clopidogrel not just in populations with minor stroke but for people with MI and coronary stents.

He said he found the results surprising and was intrigued that this paper suggests looking more skeptically at ticagrelor when kidney function is impaired.

Still, the choice may also come down to what the patient can afford at the pharmacy, he said.

“The reality is many patients still get clopidogrel either because that’s what their physicians have been prescribing for well over a decade or because of cost issues, and clopidogrel, for many patients, can be less expensive,” Dr. Barnes noted.

He said he would like to see more study in different populations as the prevalence of people carrying CYP2C19 allele differs by race and results might be different in a non-Asian population. That allele is thought to affect how clopidogrel is metabolized.
 

Study should spur more research

Nada El Husseini, MD, associate professor of neurology and Duke Telestroke Medical Director at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said the study is hypothesis generating, but shouldn’t be thought of as the last word on the subject.

She pointed out some additional limitations of the study, including that it was a post hoc analysis. She explained that the question researchers asked in this study – about effect of kidney function on the safety and efficacy of the therapies – was not the focus of the original CHANCE-2 study, and, as such, the post hoc study may have been underpowered to answer the renal function question.

The authors acknowledged that limitation, noting that “the proportion of patients with severely decreased renal function was low.”

Among 6,378 patients, 4,050 (63.5%) had normal kidney function, 2,010 (31.5%) had mildly decreased function, and 318 (5.0%) had moderately to severely decreased function.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China, the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, the Chinese Stroke Association, the National Science and Technology Major Project and the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program). Salubris Pharmaceuticals contributed ticagrelor and, clopidogrel at no cost and with no restrictions. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Barnes and Dr. El Husseini reported no relevant financial relationships.

Renal function should be considered when determining whether to pick ticagrelor-aspirin or clopidogrel-aspirin as the antiplatelet therapy for patients with minor stroke, according to new research.

The study, which was conducted in 202 centers in China and published in Annals of Internal Medicine, indicates that when patients had normal kidney function, ticagrelor-aspirin, compared with clopidogrel-aspirin, substantially reduced the risk for recurrent stroke within 90 days of follow-up.

However, this effect was not seen in patients with mildly, moderately or severely decreased kidney function.

Rates of severe or moderate bleeding did not differ substantially between the two treatments.
 

Results gleaned from CHANCE-2 data

The researchers, led by Anxin Wang, PhD, from Capital Medical University in Beijing, conducted a post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events-II) trial.

The trial included 6,378 patients who carried cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) loss-of-function (LOF) alleles who had experienced a minor stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Patients received either ticagrelor-aspirin or clopidogrel-aspirin, and their renal function was measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate. The authors listed as a limitation that no data were available on the presence of albuminuria or proteinuria.

The researchers investigated what effect renal function had on the efficacy and safety of the therapies.
 

Differences in the therapies

Clopidogrel-aspirin is often recommended for preventing stroke. It can reduce thrombotic risk in patients with impaired kidney function, the authors noted. Ticagrelor can provide greater, faster, and more consistent P2Y12 inhibition than clopidogrel, and evidence shows it is effective in preventing stroke recurrence, particularly in people carrying CYP2C19 LOF alleles.

When people have reduced kidney function, clopidogrel may be harder to clear than ticagrelor and there may be increased plasma concentrations, so function is important to consider when choosing an antiplatelet therapy, the authors wrote.
 

Choice may come down to cost

Geoffrey Barnes, MD, MSc, associate professor of vascular and cardiovascular medicine at University of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that there has been momentum toward ticagrelor as a more potent choice than clopidogrel not just in populations with minor stroke but for people with MI and coronary stents.

He said he found the results surprising and was intrigued that this paper suggests looking more skeptically at ticagrelor when kidney function is impaired.

Still, the choice may also come down to what the patient can afford at the pharmacy, he said.

“The reality is many patients still get clopidogrel either because that’s what their physicians have been prescribing for well over a decade or because of cost issues, and clopidogrel, for many patients, can be less expensive,” Dr. Barnes noted.

He said he would like to see more study in different populations as the prevalence of people carrying CYP2C19 allele differs by race and results might be different in a non-Asian population. That allele is thought to affect how clopidogrel is metabolized.
 

Study should spur more research

Nada El Husseini, MD, associate professor of neurology and Duke Telestroke Medical Director at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said the study is hypothesis generating, but shouldn’t be thought of as the last word on the subject.

She pointed out some additional limitations of the study, including that it was a post hoc analysis. She explained that the question researchers asked in this study – about effect of kidney function on the safety and efficacy of the therapies – was not the focus of the original CHANCE-2 study, and, as such, the post hoc study may have been underpowered to answer the renal function question.

The authors acknowledged that limitation, noting that “the proportion of patients with severely decreased renal function was low.”

Among 6,378 patients, 4,050 (63.5%) had normal kidney function, 2,010 (31.5%) had mildly decreased function, and 318 (5.0%) had moderately to severely decreased function.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China, the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, the Chinese Stroke Association, the National Science and Technology Major Project and the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program). Salubris Pharmaceuticals contributed ticagrelor and, clopidogrel at no cost and with no restrictions. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Barnes and Dr. El Husseini reported no relevant financial relationships.

Renal function should be considered when determining whether to pick ticagrelor-aspirin or clopidogrel-aspirin as the antiplatelet therapy for patients with minor stroke, according to new research.

The study, which was conducted in 202 centers in China and published in Annals of Internal Medicine, indicates that when patients had normal kidney function, ticagrelor-aspirin, compared with clopidogrel-aspirin, substantially reduced the risk for recurrent stroke within 90 days of follow-up.

However, this effect was not seen in patients with mildly, moderately or severely decreased kidney function.

Rates of severe or moderate bleeding did not differ substantially between the two treatments.
 

Results gleaned from CHANCE-2 data

The researchers, led by Anxin Wang, PhD, from Capital Medical University in Beijing, conducted a post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events-II) trial.

The trial included 6,378 patients who carried cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) loss-of-function (LOF) alleles who had experienced a minor stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Patients received either ticagrelor-aspirin or clopidogrel-aspirin, and their renal function was measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate. The authors listed as a limitation that no data were available on the presence of albuminuria or proteinuria.

The researchers investigated what effect renal function had on the efficacy and safety of the therapies.
 

Differences in the therapies

Clopidogrel-aspirin is often recommended for preventing stroke. It can reduce thrombotic risk in patients with impaired kidney function, the authors noted. Ticagrelor can provide greater, faster, and more consistent P2Y12 inhibition than clopidogrel, and evidence shows it is effective in preventing stroke recurrence, particularly in people carrying CYP2C19 LOF alleles.

When people have reduced kidney function, clopidogrel may be harder to clear than ticagrelor and there may be increased plasma concentrations, so function is important to consider when choosing an antiplatelet therapy, the authors wrote.
 

Choice may come down to cost

Geoffrey Barnes, MD, MSc, associate professor of vascular and cardiovascular medicine at University of Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that there has been momentum toward ticagrelor as a more potent choice than clopidogrel not just in populations with minor stroke but for people with MI and coronary stents.

He said he found the results surprising and was intrigued that this paper suggests looking more skeptically at ticagrelor when kidney function is impaired.

Still, the choice may also come down to what the patient can afford at the pharmacy, he said.

“The reality is many patients still get clopidogrel either because that’s what their physicians have been prescribing for well over a decade or because of cost issues, and clopidogrel, for many patients, can be less expensive,” Dr. Barnes noted.

He said he would like to see more study in different populations as the prevalence of people carrying CYP2C19 allele differs by race and results might be different in a non-Asian population. That allele is thought to affect how clopidogrel is metabolized.
 

Study should spur more research

Nada El Husseini, MD, associate professor of neurology and Duke Telestroke Medical Director at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said the study is hypothesis generating, but shouldn’t be thought of as the last word on the subject.

She pointed out some additional limitations of the study, including that it was a post hoc analysis. She explained that the question researchers asked in this study – about effect of kidney function on the safety and efficacy of the therapies – was not the focus of the original CHANCE-2 study, and, as such, the post hoc study may have been underpowered to answer the renal function question.

The authors acknowledged that limitation, noting that “the proportion of patients with severely decreased renal function was low.”

Among 6,378 patients, 4,050 (63.5%) had normal kidney function, 2,010 (31.5%) had mildly decreased function, and 318 (5.0%) had moderately to severely decreased function.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China, the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, the Chinese Stroke Association, the National Science and Technology Major Project and the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program). Salubris Pharmaceuticals contributed ticagrelor and, clopidogrel at no cost and with no restrictions. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Barnes and Dr. El Husseini reported no relevant financial relationships.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

A new study based on U.S. veterans’ medical records adds to the evidence for a link between gout – especially poorly controlled cases – and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Tate Johnson, MD, reported at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal Associated Disease Network.

Gout was associated with a 68% increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 25% increased risk of HF-related death, and a 22% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), said Dr. Johnson, of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Poorly controlled serum urate was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT). He said more research is needed to see if there is a causal link between gout, hyperuricemia – or its treatment – and CVD risk.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues used records from the Veterans Health Administration for this study. They created a retrospective, matched cohort study that looked at records dating from January 1999 to September 2015. Patients with gout (≥ 2 ICD-9 codes) were matched 1:10 on age, sex, and year of VHA enrollment to patients without a gout ICD-9 code or a record of receiving ULT. They matched 559,243 people with gout to 5,407,379 people who did not have a diagnosis or a recorded treatment for this condition.

Over 43,331,604 person-years, Dr. Johnson and colleagues observed 137,162 CVD events in gout (incidence rate 33.96 per 1,000 person-years) vs. 879,903 in non-gout patients (IR 22.37 per 1,000 person-years). Gout was most strongly associated with HF hospitalization, with a nearly threefold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-2.83), which attenuated but persisted after adjustment for additional CVD risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65-1.70) and excluding patients with prevalent HF (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.57-1.64).

People with gout were also at higher risk of HF-related death (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.29), MACE (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23), and coronary artery disease–related death (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20-1.22).

Among people with gout in the study, poor serum urate control was associated with a higher risk of all CVD events, with the highest CVD risk occurring in patients with inadequately controlled serum urate despite receipt of ULT, particularly related to HF hospitalization (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52) and HF-related death (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61).

Limits of the study include the generalizability of the study population. Reflecting the VHA’s patient population, 99% of the cohort were men, with 62% of the gout group and 59.4% of the control group identifying as White and non-Hispanic.

The study provides evidence that may be found only by studying medical records, Richard J. Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

Dr. Richard Johnson, who is not related to the author, said that only about one-third of people with gout are adequately treated, and about another one-third take urate-lowering therapy (ULT) but fail to get their serum urate level under control. But it would be unethical to design a clinical trial to study CVD risk and poorly controlled serum urate without ULT treatment.

“The only way you can figure out if uric acid lowering is going to help these guys is to actually do a study like this where you see the ones who don’t get adequate treatment versus adequate treatment and you show that there’s going to be a difference in outcome,” he said.

Dr. Richard Johnson contrasted this approach with the one used in the recently reported study that appeared to cast doubt on the link between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular disease. The ALL-HEART trial found that allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic heart disease. But these patients did not have gout, and that was a critical difference, he said.

He noted that it was not surprising that the results of ALL-HEART were negative, given the study design.

“The ALL-HEART study treated people regardless of their uric acid level, and they also excluded subjects who had a history of gout,” he said. “Yet the risk associated with uric acid occurs primarily among those with elevated serum uric acid levels and those with gout.”

The study received funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the VHA. Neither Dr. Tate Johnson nor Dr. Richard Johnson had any relevant disclosures.

Patients with acute ischemic stroke presenting late at the hospital can be selected for endovascular thrombectomy by the presence of collateral flow on CT angiography (CTA), a new study shows.

The MR CLEAN-LATE trial found that patients selected for thrombectomy in this way had a greater chance of a better functional outcome than patients who did not receive endovascular therapy.

The study was presented at the 14th World Stroke Congress in Singapore by study investigator Susanne Olthuis, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Patients in the intervention group were more likely to show a benefit on the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days with a significant common odds ratio of 1.68, a finding that received applause from attendees of the plenary WSC session at which the study was presented.

“This means that patients treated with endovascular therapy in this trial had about a 1.7 times higher chance of achieving a better functional outcome at 90 days,” Dr. Olthuis said.

“Selection based on collateral flow identifies an additional group of patients eligible for late-window endovascular therapy in addition to those eligible based on perfusion and clinical criteria,” Dr. Olthuis concluded.

“We recommend implementation of collateral selection in routine clinical practice as it is time efficient. The CTA is already available, and it involves a low-complexity assessment. The only distinction that needs to be made is whether or not there are any collaterals visible on CTA. If collaterals are absent or there is any doubt, then CT perfusion [CTP] imaging can still be used,” she added.

Co–principal investigator Wim H. van Zwam, MD, interventional radiologist at Maastricht, said in a comment:“My take-home message is that now in the late window we can select patients based on the presence of collaterals on CT angiography, which makes selection easier and faster and more widely available.

“If any collaterals are seen – and that is easily done just by looking at the CTA scan – then the patient can be selected for endovascular treatment,” Dr. van Zwam added. “We don’t need to wait for calculations of core and penumbra volumes from the CTP scan. There will also be additional patients who can benefit from endovascular therapy who do not fulfill the CTP criteria but do have visible collaterals.”

Explaining the background to the study, Dr. Olthuis noted that endovascular thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion stroke is safe and effective if performed within 6 hours and the effect then diminishes over time. In the original trial of endovascular treatment, MR CLEAN, patients with higher collateral grades had more treatment benefit, leading to the hypothesis that the assessment of collateral blood flow could help identify patients who would still benefit in the late time window.

The current MR CLEAN-LATE trial therefore set out to compare safety and efficacy of endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation presenting within 6-24 hours from symptom onset with patients selected based on the presence of collateral flow on CTA.

At the time the trial was starting, the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials reported showing benefit of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late window who had been selected for endovascular treatment based on a combination of perfusion imaging and clinical criteria, so patients who fitted these criteria were also excluded from MR CLEAN-LATE as they would now be eligible for endovascular therapy under the latest clinical guidelines. 

But the study continued, as “we believed collateral selection may still be able to identify an additional group of patients that may benefit from endovascular therapy in the late window,” Dr. Olthuis said.

The trial randomly assigned 502 such patients with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of at least 2 and with collateral flow grades of 1-3 to receive endovascular therapy (intervention) or control.

Safety data showed a slightly but nonsignificantly higher mortality rate at 90 days in the control group (30%) versus 24% in the intervention group.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was higher in the intervention group (6.7%) versus 1.6% in the control group, but Dr. Olthuis pointed out that the rate of sICH in the intervention group was similar to that in the endovascular groups of the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials.

The primary endpoint – mRS score at 90 days – showed a shift toward better outcome in the intervention group, with an adjusted common OR of 1.68 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.33).

The median mRS score in the intervention group was 3 (95% CI, 2-5) versus 4 (95% CI, 2-6) in the control group.

Secondary outcomes also showed benefits for the intervention group for the endpoints of mRS score 0-1 versus 2-6 (OR, 1.63); mRS 0-2 versus 3-6 (OR 1.54); and mRS 0-3 versus 4-6 (OR, 1.74).

In addition, NIHSS score was reduced by 17% at 24 hours and by 27% by 5-7 days or discharge in the intervention group. Recanalization at 24 hours was also improved in the intervention group (81% vs. 52%) and infarct size was reduced by 32%.

Dr. Olthuis explained that collateral grade was defined as the amount of collateral flow in the affected hemisphere as a percentage of the contralateral site, with grade 0 correlating to an absence of collaterals (and these were the only patients excluded).

Grade 1 included patients with 50% or less collaterals, grade 2 more than 50%, and grade 3 excellent collaterals – around 100%. “We included grade 1, 2 and 3, and subgroup analysis suggested no treatment interactions between different collateral grades in the patients included,” she said.

Dr. van Zwam noted that there has been evidence from other studies suggesting that the presence of collateral flow could be used to select patients for late thrombectomy, but MR CLEAN-LATE is the first randomized trial to show this and provides confirmation that this strategy is valid.

“Our results show that patients can be selected with just standard CT angiography imaging and that CT perfusion is not necessary. This will make it easier and faster to select patients especially for centers in low-resource areas who do not yet have CT perfusion imaging,” he commented.

“But even in centers where CT perfusion imaging is performed, these results should mean that we do not have to wait to analyze these results before going ahead with thrombectomy. It will also give us an additional tool, as some patients do not meet the criteria on perfusion imaging but still have identifiable collaterals and thus would now qualify for endovascular thrombectomy,” he added.
 

Could collateral assessment replace CT perfusion?

Commenting on the MR CLEAN-LATE trial, Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), who is cochair of the WSC scientific committee, said it was an “excellent study.”

“This study does not rely on advanced imaging (e.g., mismatch) and criteria can easily be interpreted on CT/CTA. If the study is published and all details are available this study may substantially ease endovascular therapy in the late time window,” Dr. Kiechl told this news organization.

Also commenting, Urs Fischer, MD, chairman of the department of neurology at the University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), who was not involved with MR CLEAN-LATE, said: “This is another study that has nicely shown that endovascular therapy in patients in the later time window is highly effective.”

Dr. Fischer said he was not surprised by the results. 

“I was expecting the trial to be positive,” he said. “What we can say is that endovascular therapy in patients with proximal vessel occlusion is a very effective intervention – probably one of the most important interventions in the history of medicine – and now we have another subgroup to whom we can offer this therapy. So, this is an important study that will improve the outcome of many further patients.”

Yvo Roos, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Amsterdam, who was a MR CLEAN-LATE investigator, agreed that the trial has the potential to increase number of patients who can be treated with endovascular therapy.

But both Dr. Roos and Dr. Fischer were not convinced that collateral assessment would replace CT perfusion as the first-line choice in selecting patients for endovascular treatment.

“We need to see what kind of patients were included in the trial and what kind of perfusion imaging characteristics they had, to see how they compare with patients selected by perfusion imaging,” Dr. Roos noted. “I think CT perfusion is here. But if the data shows that collateral score is better able to identify patients for endovascular treatment than CT perfusion, then this has the potential to change practice. But that needs to be shown.”

All patients screened for the MR CLEAN-LATE trial also received CT perfusion imaging as part of the standard imaging protocol, and many were selected for endovascular therapy directly on this basis, so would not have entered the trial. The researchers plan to analyze these results and to compare how the two approaches differ.

MR CLEAN-LATE is an investigator-driven study, funded by the Dutch Heart Foundation, the Brain Foundation Netherlands, and Medtronic. The study was designed and conducted, analyzed, and interpreted by the investigators independently of all sponsors. Dr. Olthuis reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with acute ischemic stroke presenting late at the hospital can be selected for endovascular thrombectomy by the presence of collateral flow on CT angiography (CTA), a new study shows.

The MR CLEAN-LATE trial found that patients selected for thrombectomy in this way had a greater chance of a better functional outcome than patients who did not receive endovascular therapy.

The study was presented at the 14th World Stroke Congress in Singapore by study investigator Susanne Olthuis, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Patients in the intervention group were more likely to show a benefit on the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days with a significant common odds ratio of 1.68, a finding that received applause from attendees of the plenary WSC session at which the study was presented.

“This means that patients treated with endovascular therapy in this trial had about a 1.7 times higher chance of achieving a better functional outcome at 90 days,” Dr. Olthuis said.

“Selection based on collateral flow identifies an additional group of patients eligible for late-window endovascular therapy in addition to those eligible based on perfusion and clinical criteria,” Dr. Olthuis concluded.

“We recommend implementation of collateral selection in routine clinical practice as it is time efficient. The CTA is already available, and it involves a low-complexity assessment. The only distinction that needs to be made is whether or not there are any collaterals visible on CTA. If collaterals are absent or there is any doubt, then CT perfusion [CTP] imaging can still be used,” she added.

Co–principal investigator Wim H. van Zwam, MD, interventional radiologist at Maastricht, said in a comment:“My take-home message is that now in the late window we can select patients based on the presence of collaterals on CT angiography, which makes selection easier and faster and more widely available.

“If any collaterals are seen – and that is easily done just by looking at the CTA scan – then the patient can be selected for endovascular treatment,” Dr. van Zwam added. “We don’t need to wait for calculations of core and penumbra volumes from the CTP scan. There will also be additional patients who can benefit from endovascular therapy who do not fulfill the CTP criteria but do have visible collaterals.”

Explaining the background to the study, Dr. Olthuis noted that endovascular thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion stroke is safe and effective if performed within 6 hours and the effect then diminishes over time. In the original trial of endovascular treatment, MR CLEAN, patients with higher collateral grades had more treatment benefit, leading to the hypothesis that the assessment of collateral blood flow could help identify patients who would still benefit in the late time window.

The current MR CLEAN-LATE trial therefore set out to compare safety and efficacy of endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation presenting within 6-24 hours from symptom onset with patients selected based on the presence of collateral flow on CTA.

At the time the trial was starting, the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials reported showing benefit of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late window who had been selected for endovascular treatment based on a combination of perfusion imaging and clinical criteria, so patients who fitted these criteria were also excluded from MR CLEAN-LATE as they would now be eligible for endovascular therapy under the latest clinical guidelines. 

But the study continued, as “we believed collateral selection may still be able to identify an additional group of patients that may benefit from endovascular therapy in the late window,” Dr. Olthuis said.

The trial randomly assigned 502 such patients with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of at least 2 and with collateral flow grades of 1-3 to receive endovascular therapy (intervention) or control.

Safety data showed a slightly but nonsignificantly higher mortality rate at 90 days in the control group (30%) versus 24% in the intervention group.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was higher in the intervention group (6.7%) versus 1.6% in the control group, but Dr. Olthuis pointed out that the rate of sICH in the intervention group was similar to that in the endovascular groups of the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials.

The primary endpoint – mRS score at 90 days – showed a shift toward better outcome in the intervention group, with an adjusted common OR of 1.68 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.33).

The median mRS score in the intervention group was 3 (95% CI, 2-5) versus 4 (95% CI, 2-6) in the control group.

Secondary outcomes also showed benefits for the intervention group for the endpoints of mRS score 0-1 versus 2-6 (OR, 1.63); mRS 0-2 versus 3-6 (OR 1.54); and mRS 0-3 versus 4-6 (OR, 1.74).

In addition, NIHSS score was reduced by 17% at 24 hours and by 27% by 5-7 days or discharge in the intervention group. Recanalization at 24 hours was also improved in the intervention group (81% vs. 52%) and infarct size was reduced by 32%.

Dr. Olthuis explained that collateral grade was defined as the amount of collateral flow in the affected hemisphere as a percentage of the contralateral site, with grade 0 correlating to an absence of collaterals (and these were the only patients excluded).

Grade 1 included patients with 50% or less collaterals, grade 2 more than 50%, and grade 3 excellent collaterals – around 100%. “We included grade 1, 2 and 3, and subgroup analysis suggested no treatment interactions between different collateral grades in the patients included,” she said.

Dr. van Zwam noted that there has been evidence from other studies suggesting that the presence of collateral flow could be used to select patients for late thrombectomy, but MR CLEAN-LATE is the first randomized trial to show this and provides confirmation that this strategy is valid.

“Our results show that patients can be selected with just standard CT angiography imaging and that CT perfusion is not necessary. This will make it easier and faster to select patients especially for centers in low-resource areas who do not yet have CT perfusion imaging,” he commented.

“But even in centers where CT perfusion imaging is performed, these results should mean that we do not have to wait to analyze these results before going ahead with thrombectomy. It will also give us an additional tool, as some patients do not meet the criteria on perfusion imaging but still have identifiable collaterals and thus would now qualify for endovascular thrombectomy,” he added.
 

Could collateral assessment replace CT perfusion?

Commenting on the MR CLEAN-LATE trial, Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), who is cochair of the WSC scientific committee, said it was an “excellent study.”

“This study does not rely on advanced imaging (e.g., mismatch) and criteria can easily be interpreted on CT/CTA. If the study is published and all details are available this study may substantially ease endovascular therapy in the late time window,” Dr. Kiechl told this news organization.

Also commenting, Urs Fischer, MD, chairman of the department of neurology at the University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), who was not involved with MR CLEAN-LATE, said: “This is another study that has nicely shown that endovascular therapy in patients in the later time window is highly effective.”

Dr. Fischer said he was not surprised by the results. 

“I was expecting the trial to be positive,” he said. “What we can say is that endovascular therapy in patients with proximal vessel occlusion is a very effective intervention – probably one of the most important interventions in the history of medicine – and now we have another subgroup to whom we can offer this therapy. So, this is an important study that will improve the outcome of many further patients.”

Yvo Roos, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Amsterdam, who was a MR CLEAN-LATE investigator, agreed that the trial has the potential to increase number of patients who can be treated with endovascular therapy.

But both Dr. Roos and Dr. Fischer were not convinced that collateral assessment would replace CT perfusion as the first-line choice in selecting patients for endovascular treatment.

“We need to see what kind of patients were included in the trial and what kind of perfusion imaging characteristics they had, to see how they compare with patients selected by perfusion imaging,” Dr. Roos noted. “I think CT perfusion is here. But if the data shows that collateral score is better able to identify patients for endovascular treatment than CT perfusion, then this has the potential to change practice. But that needs to be shown.”

All patients screened for the MR CLEAN-LATE trial also received CT perfusion imaging as part of the standard imaging protocol, and many were selected for endovascular therapy directly on this basis, so would not have entered the trial. The researchers plan to analyze these results and to compare how the two approaches differ.

MR CLEAN-LATE is an investigator-driven study, funded by the Dutch Heart Foundation, the Brain Foundation Netherlands, and Medtronic. The study was designed and conducted, analyzed, and interpreted by the investigators independently of all sponsors. Dr. Olthuis reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with acute ischemic stroke presenting late at the hospital can be selected for endovascular thrombectomy by the presence of collateral flow on CT angiography (CTA), a new study shows.

The MR CLEAN-LATE trial found that patients selected for thrombectomy in this way had a greater chance of a better functional outcome than patients who did not receive endovascular therapy.

The study was presented at the 14th World Stroke Congress in Singapore by study investigator Susanne Olthuis, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Patients in the intervention group were more likely to show a benefit on the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days with a significant common odds ratio of 1.68, a finding that received applause from attendees of the plenary WSC session at which the study was presented.

“This means that patients treated with endovascular therapy in this trial had about a 1.7 times higher chance of achieving a better functional outcome at 90 days,” Dr. Olthuis said.

“Selection based on collateral flow identifies an additional group of patients eligible for late-window endovascular therapy in addition to those eligible based on perfusion and clinical criteria,” Dr. Olthuis concluded.

“We recommend implementation of collateral selection in routine clinical practice as it is time efficient. The CTA is already available, and it involves a low-complexity assessment. The only distinction that needs to be made is whether or not there are any collaterals visible on CTA. If collaterals are absent or there is any doubt, then CT perfusion [CTP] imaging can still be used,” she added.

Co–principal investigator Wim H. van Zwam, MD, interventional radiologist at Maastricht, said in a comment:“My take-home message is that now in the late window we can select patients based on the presence of collaterals on CT angiography, which makes selection easier and faster and more widely available.

“If any collaterals are seen – and that is easily done just by looking at the CTA scan – then the patient can be selected for endovascular treatment,” Dr. van Zwam added. “We don’t need to wait for calculations of core and penumbra volumes from the CTP scan. There will also be additional patients who can benefit from endovascular therapy who do not fulfill the CTP criteria but do have visible collaterals.”

Explaining the background to the study, Dr. Olthuis noted that endovascular thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion stroke is safe and effective if performed within 6 hours and the effect then diminishes over time. In the original trial of endovascular treatment, MR CLEAN, patients with higher collateral grades had more treatment benefit, leading to the hypothesis that the assessment of collateral blood flow could help identify patients who would still benefit in the late time window.

The current MR CLEAN-LATE trial therefore set out to compare safety and efficacy of endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation presenting within 6-24 hours from symptom onset with patients selected based on the presence of collateral flow on CTA.

At the time the trial was starting, the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials reported showing benefit of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late window who had been selected for endovascular treatment based on a combination of perfusion imaging and clinical criteria, so patients who fitted these criteria were also excluded from MR CLEAN-LATE as they would now be eligible for endovascular therapy under the latest clinical guidelines. 

But the study continued, as “we believed collateral selection may still be able to identify an additional group of patients that may benefit from endovascular therapy in the late window,” Dr. Olthuis said.

The trial randomly assigned 502 such patients with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of at least 2 and with collateral flow grades of 1-3 to receive endovascular therapy (intervention) or control.

Safety data showed a slightly but nonsignificantly higher mortality rate at 90 days in the control group (30%) versus 24% in the intervention group.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was higher in the intervention group (6.7%) versus 1.6% in the control group, but Dr. Olthuis pointed out that the rate of sICH in the intervention group was similar to that in the endovascular groups of the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials.

The primary endpoint – mRS score at 90 days – showed a shift toward better outcome in the intervention group, with an adjusted common OR of 1.68 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.33).

The median mRS score in the intervention group was 3 (95% CI, 2-5) versus 4 (95% CI, 2-6) in the control group.

Secondary outcomes also showed benefits for the intervention group for the endpoints of mRS score 0-1 versus 2-6 (OR, 1.63); mRS 0-2 versus 3-6 (OR 1.54); and mRS 0-3 versus 4-6 (OR, 1.74).

In addition, NIHSS score was reduced by 17% at 24 hours and by 27% by 5-7 days or discharge in the intervention group. Recanalization at 24 hours was also improved in the intervention group (81% vs. 52%) and infarct size was reduced by 32%.

Dr. Olthuis explained that collateral grade was defined as the amount of collateral flow in the affected hemisphere as a percentage of the contralateral site, with grade 0 correlating to an absence of collaterals (and these were the only patients excluded).

Grade 1 included patients with 50% or less collaterals, grade 2 more than 50%, and grade 3 excellent collaterals – around 100%. “We included grade 1, 2 and 3, and subgroup analysis suggested no treatment interactions between different collateral grades in the patients included,” she said.

Dr. van Zwam noted that there has been evidence from other studies suggesting that the presence of collateral flow could be used to select patients for late thrombectomy, but MR CLEAN-LATE is the first randomized trial to show this and provides confirmation that this strategy is valid.

“Our results show that patients can be selected with just standard CT angiography imaging and that CT perfusion is not necessary. This will make it easier and faster to select patients especially for centers in low-resource areas who do not yet have CT perfusion imaging,” he commented.

“But even in centers where CT perfusion imaging is performed, these results should mean that we do not have to wait to analyze these results before going ahead with thrombectomy. It will also give us an additional tool, as some patients do not meet the criteria on perfusion imaging but still have identifiable collaterals and thus would now qualify for endovascular thrombectomy,” he added.
 

Could collateral assessment replace CT perfusion?

Commenting on the MR CLEAN-LATE trial, Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), who is cochair of the WSC scientific committee, said it was an “excellent study.”

“This study does not rely on advanced imaging (e.g., mismatch) and criteria can easily be interpreted on CT/CTA. If the study is published and all details are available this study may substantially ease endovascular therapy in the late time window,” Dr. Kiechl told this news organization.

Also commenting, Urs Fischer, MD, chairman of the department of neurology at the University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), who was not involved with MR CLEAN-LATE, said: “This is another study that has nicely shown that endovascular therapy in patients in the later time window is highly effective.”

Dr. Fischer said he was not surprised by the results. 

“I was expecting the trial to be positive,” he said. “What we can say is that endovascular therapy in patients with proximal vessel occlusion is a very effective intervention – probably one of the most important interventions in the history of medicine – and now we have another subgroup to whom we can offer this therapy. So, this is an important study that will improve the outcome of many further patients.”

Yvo Roos, MD, professor of acute neurology at University Medical Center, Amsterdam, who was a MR CLEAN-LATE investigator, agreed that the trial has the potential to increase number of patients who can be treated with endovascular therapy.

But both Dr. Roos and Dr. Fischer were not convinced that collateral assessment would replace CT perfusion as the first-line choice in selecting patients for endovascular treatment.

“We need to see what kind of patients were included in the trial and what kind of perfusion imaging characteristics they had, to see how they compare with patients selected by perfusion imaging,” Dr. Roos noted. “I think CT perfusion is here. But if the data shows that collateral score is better able to identify patients for endovascular treatment than CT perfusion, then this has the potential to change practice. But that needs to be shown.”

All patients screened for the MR CLEAN-LATE trial also received CT perfusion imaging as part of the standard imaging protocol, and many were selected for endovascular therapy directly on this basis, so would not have entered the trial. The researchers plan to analyze these results and to compare how the two approaches differ.

MR CLEAN-LATE is an investigator-driven study, funded by the Dutch Heart Foundation, the Brain Foundation Netherlands, and Medtronic. The study was designed and conducted, analyzed, and interpreted by the investigators independently of all sponsors. Dr. Olthuis reported no relevant financial relationships.

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