Cardiology

Transplantation of hearts donated after circulatory death (DCD) is associated with short-term clinical outcomes similar to those of hearts donated after brain death (DBD), except for transient posttransplant right heart dysfunction, a single-center analysis suggests.

The right-heart dysfunction resolved by 3 weeks post transplant, and recipient mortality was similar for those receiving DCD and DBD, which is considered standard of care (SOC).

Furthermore, the median waiting list time was significantly shorter for DCD recipients than for SOC recipients (17 vs. 70 days).

The authors suggest that use of DCD hearts could expand the donor pool by as much as 30%.

“Now that we and others have demonstrated the safety of this technique, I believe it is our obligation as a transplant community to use these organs and not allow them to be wasted,” David A. D’Alessandro, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I will caution that DCD heart transplantation is labor intensive, and there is a learning curve which can potentially put patients at risk,” he added. “It is vitally important, therefore, that we learn from each other’s experiences to flatten this curve.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Similar outcomes

Dr. D’Alessandro and colleagues compared the hemodynamic and clinical profiles of 47 DCD hearts with 166 SOC hearts implanted at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2016 and 2022. DCD hearts were maintained with use of a proprietary warm perfusion circuit organ care system (OCS, TransMedics).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except the DCD heart recipients were younger (mean age, 55 vs. 59); they were less likely to be an inpatient at the time of transplant (26% vs. 49%); and they had lower pulmonary vascular resistance (1.73 WU vs. 2.26 WU).

The median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter than for SOC hearts (17 vs. 70 days). However, there was a higher, though not statistically significant, incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction at 24 hours post transplant with DCD (10.6% vs. SOC 3.6%), leading five DCD recipients (10.6%) and nine SOC recipients (5.4%) to receive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD vs. SOC recipients 1 week post transplant, with higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg vs. 7 mm Hg); higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 vs. 0.57); and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 vs. 2.52).

However, by 3 weeks post transplant, right heart function was similar between the groups, as was mortality at 30 days (0 vs. 2%) and 1 year (3% vs. 8%).

Furthermore, hospital length of stay following transplant, intensive care unit length of stay, ICU readmissions, and 30-day readmissions were similar between the groups.

“We and others will continue to push the boundaries of this technique to understand if we can safely extend the warm ischemic time, which could make additional organs available,” Dr. D’Alessandro said. “We will also be exploring additional ways to monitor and assess organ health and viability ex situ and potential avenues of treatment which could repair and optimize organ function.

“A successful DCD heart transplant program requires institutional and team commitment,” he added, “and there are clinical nuances which should be appreciated to minimize patient risks associated with the obligate learning curve.”

Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center in New York, author of a related editorial, concluded that heart donation after circulatory death “promises significant expansion of the donor pool and will lead to many lives saved” and that “the current investigation is a timely and important contribution to this effort”.

However, he noted, “it must be acknowledged that donation after cardiac death has evoked significant controversy regarding the ethics of this approach,” particularly when using a technique called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), in which, after declaration of death and ligation of cerebral vessels, the heart is resuscitated in situ using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as opposed to the proprietary warm perfusion OCS used in this study.

“Central to this discussion is the definition of death and its irreversibility,” Dr. Jorde noted. “In contrast to DBD, where brain death protocols are well established and accepted by societies across the globe, DCD protocol rules, e.g., standoff times after complete cessation of circulation, continue to vary even within national jurisdictions. Such variability and incomplete standardization of practice is particularly important when the organ is resuscitated in situ using normothermic regional perfusion.

“The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation has recently provided a framework within which donation after cardiac death, with or without the use of NRP, can be conducted to comply with ethical and legal norms and regulations, acknowledging that such norms and regulations may differ between societies,” he wrote. “To advance the field, and to ensure ongoing trust in the transplantation system, it is of critical importance that such discussions are held publicly and transparently.”
 

More ‘dry runs’

“Donor heart allographs are safe for our patients with heart failure if procured and transplanted in an organized and protocolized manner,” Philip J. Spencer, MD, a cardiovascular and transplant surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “As the techniques are adopted globally, our patients will benefit.”

Nevertheless, like Dr. D’Alessandro, he noted that procurement of DCD hearts is more labor intensive. “A program and its patients must be willing to accept a higher number of ‘dry runs,’ which occurs when the team is sent for an organ and the donor does not progress to circulatory death in a time and manner appropriate for safe organ recovery.

“There is no doubt that being open to these organs will increase the patient’s chances of receiving a donor heart in a shorter period of time,” he said. “However, the experience of a dry run, or multiple, can be emotionally and financially stressful for the patient and the program.”

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Transplantation of hearts donated after circulatory death (DCD) is associated with short-term clinical outcomes similar to those of hearts donated after brain death (DBD), except for transient posttransplant right heart dysfunction, a single-center analysis suggests.

The right-heart dysfunction resolved by 3 weeks post transplant, and recipient mortality was similar for those receiving DCD and DBD, which is considered standard of care (SOC).

Furthermore, the median waiting list time was significantly shorter for DCD recipients than for SOC recipients (17 vs. 70 days).

The authors suggest that use of DCD hearts could expand the donor pool by as much as 30%.

“Now that we and others have demonstrated the safety of this technique, I believe it is our obligation as a transplant community to use these organs and not allow them to be wasted,” David A. D’Alessandro, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I will caution that DCD heart transplantation is labor intensive, and there is a learning curve which can potentially put patients at risk,” he added. “It is vitally important, therefore, that we learn from each other’s experiences to flatten this curve.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Similar outcomes

Dr. D’Alessandro and colleagues compared the hemodynamic and clinical profiles of 47 DCD hearts with 166 SOC hearts implanted at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2016 and 2022. DCD hearts were maintained with use of a proprietary warm perfusion circuit organ care system (OCS, TransMedics).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except the DCD heart recipients were younger (mean age, 55 vs. 59); they were less likely to be an inpatient at the time of transplant (26% vs. 49%); and they had lower pulmonary vascular resistance (1.73 WU vs. 2.26 WU).

The median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter than for SOC hearts (17 vs. 70 days). However, there was a higher, though not statistically significant, incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction at 24 hours post transplant with DCD (10.6% vs. SOC 3.6%), leading five DCD recipients (10.6%) and nine SOC recipients (5.4%) to receive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD vs. SOC recipients 1 week post transplant, with higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg vs. 7 mm Hg); higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 vs. 0.57); and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 vs. 2.52).

However, by 3 weeks post transplant, right heart function was similar between the groups, as was mortality at 30 days (0 vs. 2%) and 1 year (3% vs. 8%).

Furthermore, hospital length of stay following transplant, intensive care unit length of stay, ICU readmissions, and 30-day readmissions were similar between the groups.

“We and others will continue to push the boundaries of this technique to understand if we can safely extend the warm ischemic time, which could make additional organs available,” Dr. D’Alessandro said. “We will also be exploring additional ways to monitor and assess organ health and viability ex situ and potential avenues of treatment which could repair and optimize organ function.

“A successful DCD heart transplant program requires institutional and team commitment,” he added, “and there are clinical nuances which should be appreciated to minimize patient risks associated with the obligate learning curve.”

Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center in New York, author of a related editorial, concluded that heart donation after circulatory death “promises significant expansion of the donor pool and will lead to many lives saved” and that “the current investigation is a timely and important contribution to this effort”.

However, he noted, “it must be acknowledged that donation after cardiac death has evoked significant controversy regarding the ethics of this approach,” particularly when using a technique called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), in which, after declaration of death and ligation of cerebral vessels, the heart is resuscitated in situ using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as opposed to the proprietary warm perfusion OCS used in this study.

“Central to this discussion is the definition of death and its irreversibility,” Dr. Jorde noted. “In contrast to DBD, where brain death protocols are well established and accepted by societies across the globe, DCD protocol rules, e.g., standoff times after complete cessation of circulation, continue to vary even within national jurisdictions. Such variability and incomplete standardization of practice is particularly important when the organ is resuscitated in situ using normothermic regional perfusion.

“The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation has recently provided a framework within which donation after cardiac death, with or without the use of NRP, can be conducted to comply with ethical and legal norms and regulations, acknowledging that such norms and regulations may differ between societies,” he wrote. “To advance the field, and to ensure ongoing trust in the transplantation system, it is of critical importance that such discussions are held publicly and transparently.”
 

More ‘dry runs’

“Donor heart allographs are safe for our patients with heart failure if procured and transplanted in an organized and protocolized manner,” Philip J. Spencer, MD, a cardiovascular and transplant surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “As the techniques are adopted globally, our patients will benefit.”

Nevertheless, like Dr. D’Alessandro, he noted that procurement of DCD hearts is more labor intensive. “A program and its patients must be willing to accept a higher number of ‘dry runs,’ which occurs when the team is sent for an organ and the donor does not progress to circulatory death in a time and manner appropriate for safe organ recovery.

“There is no doubt that being open to these organs will increase the patient’s chances of receiving a donor heart in a shorter period of time,” he said. “However, the experience of a dry run, or multiple, can be emotionally and financially stressful for the patient and the program.”

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Transplantation of hearts donated after circulatory death (DCD) is associated with short-term clinical outcomes similar to those of hearts donated after brain death (DBD), except for transient posttransplant right heart dysfunction, a single-center analysis suggests.

The right-heart dysfunction resolved by 3 weeks post transplant, and recipient mortality was similar for those receiving DCD and DBD, which is considered standard of care (SOC).

Furthermore, the median waiting list time was significantly shorter for DCD recipients than for SOC recipients (17 vs. 70 days).

The authors suggest that use of DCD hearts could expand the donor pool by as much as 30%.

“Now that we and others have demonstrated the safety of this technique, I believe it is our obligation as a transplant community to use these organs and not allow them to be wasted,” David A. D’Alessandro, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I will caution that DCD heart transplantation is labor intensive, and there is a learning curve which can potentially put patients at risk,” he added. “It is vitally important, therefore, that we learn from each other’s experiences to flatten this curve.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Similar outcomes

Dr. D’Alessandro and colleagues compared the hemodynamic and clinical profiles of 47 DCD hearts with 166 SOC hearts implanted at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2016 and 2022. DCD hearts were maintained with use of a proprietary warm perfusion circuit organ care system (OCS, TransMedics).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except the DCD heart recipients were younger (mean age, 55 vs. 59); they were less likely to be an inpatient at the time of transplant (26% vs. 49%); and they had lower pulmonary vascular resistance (1.73 WU vs. 2.26 WU).

The median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter than for SOC hearts (17 vs. 70 days). However, there was a higher, though not statistically significant, incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction at 24 hours post transplant with DCD (10.6% vs. SOC 3.6%), leading five DCD recipients (10.6%) and nine SOC recipients (5.4%) to receive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD vs. SOC recipients 1 week post transplant, with higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg vs. 7 mm Hg); higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 vs. 0.57); and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 vs. 2.52).

However, by 3 weeks post transplant, right heart function was similar between the groups, as was mortality at 30 days (0 vs. 2%) and 1 year (3% vs. 8%).

Furthermore, hospital length of stay following transplant, intensive care unit length of stay, ICU readmissions, and 30-day readmissions were similar between the groups.

“We and others will continue to push the boundaries of this technique to understand if we can safely extend the warm ischemic time, which could make additional organs available,” Dr. D’Alessandro said. “We will also be exploring additional ways to monitor and assess organ health and viability ex situ and potential avenues of treatment which could repair and optimize organ function.

“A successful DCD heart transplant program requires institutional and team commitment,” he added, “and there are clinical nuances which should be appreciated to minimize patient risks associated with the obligate learning curve.”

Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center in New York, author of a related editorial, concluded that heart donation after circulatory death “promises significant expansion of the donor pool and will lead to many lives saved” and that “the current investigation is a timely and important contribution to this effort”.

However, he noted, “it must be acknowledged that donation after cardiac death has evoked significant controversy regarding the ethics of this approach,” particularly when using a technique called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), in which, after declaration of death and ligation of cerebral vessels, the heart is resuscitated in situ using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as opposed to the proprietary warm perfusion OCS used in this study.

“Central to this discussion is the definition of death and its irreversibility,” Dr. Jorde noted. “In contrast to DBD, where brain death protocols are well established and accepted by societies across the globe, DCD protocol rules, e.g., standoff times after complete cessation of circulation, continue to vary even within national jurisdictions. Such variability and incomplete standardization of practice is particularly important when the organ is resuscitated in situ using normothermic regional perfusion.

“The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation has recently provided a framework within which donation after cardiac death, with or without the use of NRP, can be conducted to comply with ethical and legal norms and regulations, acknowledging that such norms and regulations may differ between societies,” he wrote. “To advance the field, and to ensure ongoing trust in the transplantation system, it is of critical importance that such discussions are held publicly and transparently.”
 

More ‘dry runs’

“Donor heart allographs are safe for our patients with heart failure if procured and transplanted in an organized and protocolized manner,” Philip J. Spencer, MD, a cardiovascular and transplant surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “As the techniques are adopted globally, our patients will benefit.”

Nevertheless, like Dr. D’Alessandro, he noted that procurement of DCD hearts is more labor intensive. “A program and its patients must be willing to accept a higher number of ‘dry runs,’ which occurs when the team is sent for an organ and the donor does not progress to circulatory death in a time and manner appropriate for safe organ recovery.

“There is no doubt that being open to these organs will increase the patient’s chances of receiving a donor heart in a shorter period of time,” he said. “However, the experience of a dry run, or multiple, can be emotionally and financially stressful for the patient and the program.”

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Apremilast may have an overall benefit for patients with cardiometabolic disease and psoriasis, new results from a nonrandomized clinical trial suggest.

The trial, led by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology and vice chair of clinical research in dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that apremilast (Otezla) has a neutral effect on aortic vascular inflammation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

It also had variable, but generally favorable, associations with 68 cardiometabolic biomarkers tested and associations with reductions in both visceral and subcutaneous fat. Findings of the study were published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Fat reductions maintained at 1-year mark

The researchers found a 5%-6% reduction in subcutaneous and visceral fat at week 16 of the study that was maintained at the 1-year mark. “The fact that it was rock stable a year later is pretty encouraging,” Dr. Gelfand told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

As for effects on vascular inflammation, Dr. Gelfand said, “The good news is we didn’t find any adverse effects on aortic vascular inflammation, but we didn’t find any beneficial effects either. That was a little disappointing.

“The most surprising thing was really the effects on visceral adiposity,” he added. “I’m not aware of any other drug having demonstrated that effect.”

Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist with NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization that despite seemingly good epidemiologic evidence in observational studies that by treating psoriasis surrogates of cardiovascular risk can be reduced, this trial, like others before it, failed to reduce aortic vascular inflammation.

Courtesy NYU Langone

Seventy patients enrolled

In total, 70 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were enrolled, 60 completed week 16, and 39 completed week 52 of the single-arm, open-label trial conducted between April 2017 and August 2021 at seven dermatology sites in the United States.

Participants took 30 mg of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor approved for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, twice daily. Participants’ average age was 47.5 years; most were male (77.1%) and White (82.9%); almost 6% were Black. Average body mass index was 30 kg/m². Patients could not have received biologics within 90 days of study baseline (or 180 days for ustekinumab [Stelara]).

There was no change in aortic vascular inflammation at week 16 (target to background ratio, −0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.08 to 0.05; P = .61) or week 52 (target to background ratio, −0.07; 95% CI, −0.15 to 0.01; P = .09) compared with baseline.

“At week 16, there were reductions in levels of interleukin-1b, fetuin A, valine, leucine, and isoleucine,” the authors wrote, adding that at week 52, compared with baseline, “there were reductions in levels of ferritin, cholesterol efflux capacity, beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetone, and ketone bodies, and an increase in levels of apolipoprotein A-1.”

This study highlights the importance of screening, Dr. Garshick said.

He and Dr. Gelfand said people with psoriatic disease tend to be vastly underscreened for cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Gelfand said, “If we did what we knew worked – meaning we screened them for diabetes, we screen their cholesterol, we check their blood pressure, and we adequately treated those traditional cardiovascular risk factors, we probably could narrow the gap quite a bit” in terms of the lower life expectancy people face when they have more significant psoriasis.

Celgene was the initial funding sponsor; sponsorship was then transferred to Amgen. The authors designed, executed, analyzed, and reported the study. Celgene provided nonbinding input into study design, and Amgen provided nonbinding input into the reporting of results. Dr. Gelfand reported numerous disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Garshick reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Apremilast may have an overall benefit for patients with cardiometabolic disease and psoriasis, new results from a nonrandomized clinical trial suggest.

The trial, led by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology and vice chair of clinical research in dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that apremilast (Otezla) has a neutral effect on aortic vascular inflammation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

It also had variable, but generally favorable, associations with 68 cardiometabolic biomarkers tested and associations with reductions in both visceral and subcutaneous fat. Findings of the study were published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Fat reductions maintained at 1-year mark

The researchers found a 5%-6% reduction in subcutaneous and visceral fat at week 16 of the study that was maintained at the 1-year mark. “The fact that it was rock stable a year later is pretty encouraging,” Dr. Gelfand told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

As for effects on vascular inflammation, Dr. Gelfand said, “The good news is we didn’t find any adverse effects on aortic vascular inflammation, but we didn’t find any beneficial effects either. That was a little disappointing.

“The most surprising thing was really the effects on visceral adiposity,” he added. “I’m not aware of any other drug having demonstrated that effect.”

Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist with NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization that despite seemingly good epidemiologic evidence in observational studies that by treating psoriasis surrogates of cardiovascular risk can be reduced, this trial, like others before it, failed to reduce aortic vascular inflammation.

Courtesy NYU Langone

Seventy patients enrolled

In total, 70 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were enrolled, 60 completed week 16, and 39 completed week 52 of the single-arm, open-label trial conducted between April 2017 and August 2021 at seven dermatology sites in the United States.

Participants took 30 mg of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor approved for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, twice daily. Participants’ average age was 47.5 years; most were male (77.1%) and White (82.9%); almost 6% were Black. Average body mass index was 30 kg/m². Patients could not have received biologics within 90 days of study baseline (or 180 days for ustekinumab [Stelara]).

There was no change in aortic vascular inflammation at week 16 (target to background ratio, −0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.08 to 0.05; P = .61) or week 52 (target to background ratio, −0.07; 95% CI, −0.15 to 0.01; P = .09) compared with baseline.

“At week 16, there were reductions in levels of interleukin-1b, fetuin A, valine, leucine, and isoleucine,” the authors wrote, adding that at week 52, compared with baseline, “there were reductions in levels of ferritin, cholesterol efflux capacity, beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetone, and ketone bodies, and an increase in levels of apolipoprotein A-1.”

This study highlights the importance of screening, Dr. Garshick said.

He and Dr. Gelfand said people with psoriatic disease tend to be vastly underscreened for cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Gelfand said, “If we did what we knew worked – meaning we screened them for diabetes, we screen their cholesterol, we check their blood pressure, and we adequately treated those traditional cardiovascular risk factors, we probably could narrow the gap quite a bit” in terms of the lower life expectancy people face when they have more significant psoriasis.

Celgene was the initial funding sponsor; sponsorship was then transferred to Amgen. The authors designed, executed, analyzed, and reported the study. Celgene provided nonbinding input into study design, and Amgen provided nonbinding input into the reporting of results. Dr. Gelfand reported numerous disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Garshick reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Apremilast may have an overall benefit for patients with cardiometabolic disease and psoriasis, new results from a nonrandomized clinical trial suggest.

The trial, led by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology and vice chair of clinical research in dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that apremilast (Otezla) has a neutral effect on aortic vascular inflammation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

It also had variable, but generally favorable, associations with 68 cardiometabolic biomarkers tested and associations with reductions in both visceral and subcutaneous fat. Findings of the study were published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Fat reductions maintained at 1-year mark

The researchers found a 5%-6% reduction in subcutaneous and visceral fat at week 16 of the study that was maintained at the 1-year mark. “The fact that it was rock stable a year later is pretty encouraging,” Dr. Gelfand told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

As for effects on vascular inflammation, Dr. Gelfand said, “The good news is we didn’t find any adverse effects on aortic vascular inflammation, but we didn’t find any beneficial effects either. That was a little disappointing.

“The most surprising thing was really the effects on visceral adiposity,” he added. “I’m not aware of any other drug having demonstrated that effect.”

Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist with NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved with the trial, told this news organization that despite seemingly good epidemiologic evidence in observational studies that by treating psoriasis surrogates of cardiovascular risk can be reduced, this trial, like others before it, failed to reduce aortic vascular inflammation.

Courtesy NYU Langone

Seventy patients enrolled

In total, 70 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were enrolled, 60 completed week 16, and 39 completed week 52 of the single-arm, open-label trial conducted between April 2017 and August 2021 at seven dermatology sites in the United States.

Participants took 30 mg of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor approved for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, twice daily. Participants’ average age was 47.5 years; most were male (77.1%) and White (82.9%); almost 6% were Black. Average body mass index was 30 kg/m². Patients could not have received biologics within 90 days of study baseline (or 180 days for ustekinumab [Stelara]).

There was no change in aortic vascular inflammation at week 16 (target to background ratio, −0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.08 to 0.05; P = .61) or week 52 (target to background ratio, −0.07; 95% CI, −0.15 to 0.01; P = .09) compared with baseline.

“At week 16, there were reductions in levels of interleukin-1b, fetuin A, valine, leucine, and isoleucine,” the authors wrote, adding that at week 52, compared with baseline, “there were reductions in levels of ferritin, cholesterol efflux capacity, beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetone, and ketone bodies, and an increase in levels of apolipoprotein A-1.”

This study highlights the importance of screening, Dr. Garshick said.

He and Dr. Gelfand said people with psoriatic disease tend to be vastly underscreened for cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Gelfand said, “If we did what we knew worked – meaning we screened them for diabetes, we screen their cholesterol, we check their blood pressure, and we adequately treated those traditional cardiovascular risk factors, we probably could narrow the gap quite a bit” in terms of the lower life expectancy people face when they have more significant psoriasis.

Celgene was the initial funding sponsor; sponsorship was then transferred to Amgen. The authors designed, executed, analyzed, and reported the study. Celgene provided nonbinding input into study design, and Amgen provided nonbinding input into the reporting of results. Dr. Gelfand reported numerous disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Garshick reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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