Cardiology

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

THE CASE

A 56-year-old physician (CUL) visited a local seafood restaurant, after having fasted since the prior evening. He had a history of hypertension that was well controlled with lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide.

The physician and his party were seated outside, where the temperature was in the mid-70s. The group ordered oysters on the half shell accompanied by mignonette sauce, cocktail sauce, and horseradish. The physician ate an olive-size amount of horseradish with an oyster. He immediately complained of a sharp burning sensation in his stomach and remarked that the horseradish was significantly stronger than what he was accustomed to. Within 30 seconds, he noted an increased heart rate, weakness, and intense sweating. There was no increase in nasal secretions. Observers noted that he was very pale.

About 5 minutes after eating the horseradish, the physician leaned his head back and briefly lost consciousness. His wife, while supporting his head and checking his pulse, instructed other diners to call for emergency services, at which point the physician regained consciousness and the dispatcher was told that an ambulance was no longer necessary. Within a matter of minutes, all symptoms had abated, except for some mild weakness.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Ten minutes after the event, the physician identified his symptoms as a horseradish-­induced vasovagal syncope (VVS), based on a case report published in JAMA in 1988, which his wife found after he asked her to do an Internet search of his symptoms.¹

THE DISCUSSION

Horseradish’s active component is isothiocyanate. Horseradish-induced syncope is also called Seder syncope after the Jewish Passover holiday dinner at which observant Jews are required to eat “bitter herbs.”^1,2 This type of syncope is thought to occur when horseradish vapors directly irritate the gastric or respiratory tract mucosa.

VVS commonly manifests for the first time at around age 13 years; however, the timing of that first occurrence can vary significantly among individuals (as in this case).³ The afferent aspect of a VVS episode is poorly understood, while the efferent aspect has been elucidated. A transient inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system results in vasodilatation, hypotension, and a temporary increase in vagal tone with bradycardia,^4-7 which leads to cerebral underperfusion and loss of consciousness.

The loss of consciousness may be caused by an emotional trigger (eg, sight of blood, cast removal,⁸ blood or platelet donations^9,10), a painful event (eg, an injection¹¹), an orthostatic trigger¹² (eg, prolonged standing), or visceral reflexes such as swallowing.¹³ In approximately 30% of cases, loss of consciousness is associated with memory loss.¹⁴ Loss of consciousness with VVS may be associated with injury in 33% of cases.¹⁵

Continue to: The recovery with awareness

The recovery with awareness of time, place, and person may be a feature of VVS, which would differentiate it from seizures and brainstem vascular events. Autonomic prodromal symptoms—including abdominal discomfort, pallor, sweating, and nausea—may precede the loss of consciousness.⁸

An evolutionary response?

VVS may have developed as a trait through evolution, although modern medicine treats it as a disease. Many potential explanations for VVS as a body defense mechanism have been proposed. Examples include fainting at the sight of blood, which developed during the Old Stone Age—a period with extreme human-to-human violence—or acting like a “possum playing dead” as a tactic designed to confuse an attacker.¹⁶

Vasovagal syncope may have developed as a trait through evolution, although modern medicine treats it as a disease.

Another theory involves clot production and suggests that VVS-induced hypotension is a defense against bleeding by improving clot formation.¹⁷

A psychological defense theory maintains that the fainting and memory loss are designed to prevent a painful or overwhelming experience from being remembered. None of these theories, however, explain orthostatic VVS.¹⁸

The brain defense theory could explain all forms of VVS. It postulates that hypotension causes decreased cerebral perfusion, which leads to syncope resulting in the body returning to a more orthostatic position with increased cerebral profusion.¹⁹

Continue to: The patient

The patient in this case was able to leave the restaurant on his own volition 30 minutes after the event and resume normal activities. Ten days later, an electrocardiogram was performed, with negative results. In this case, the use of a potassium-wasting diuretic exacerbated the risk of a fluid-deprived state, hypokalemia, and hypotension, possibly contributing to the syncope. The patient has since “gotten back on the horseradish” without ill effect.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consumers and health care providers should be aware of the risks associated with consumption of fresh horseradish and should allow it to rest prior to ingestion to allow some evaporation of its active ingredient. An old case report saved the patient from an unnecessary (and costly) emergency department visit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Terry J. Hannan, MBBS, FRACP, FACHI, FACMI for his critical review of the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Christoph U. Lehmann, MD, Clinical Informatics Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 56-year-old physician (CUL) visited a local seafood restaurant, after having fasted since the prior evening. He had a history of hypertension that was well controlled with lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide.

The physician and his party were seated outside, where the temperature was in the mid-70s. The group ordered oysters on the half shell accompanied by mignonette sauce, cocktail sauce, and horseradish. The physician ate an olive-size amount of horseradish with an oyster. He immediately complained of a sharp burning sensation in his stomach and remarked that the horseradish was significantly stronger than what he was accustomed to. Within 30 seconds, he noted an increased heart rate, weakness, and intense sweating. There was no increase in nasal secretions. Observers noted that he was very pale.

About 5 minutes after eating the horseradish, the physician leaned his head back and briefly lost consciousness. His wife, while supporting his head and checking his pulse, instructed other diners to call for emergency services, at which point the physician regained consciousness and the dispatcher was told that an ambulance was no longer necessary. Within a matter of minutes, all symptoms had abated, except for some mild weakness.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Ten minutes after the event, the physician identified his symptoms as a horseradish-­induced vasovagal syncope (VVS), based on a case report published in JAMA in 1988, which his wife found after he asked her to do an Internet search of his symptoms.¹

THE DISCUSSION

Horseradish’s active component is isothiocyanate. Horseradish-induced syncope is also called Seder syncope after the Jewish Passover holiday dinner at which observant Jews are required to eat “bitter herbs.”^1,2 This type of syncope is thought to occur when horseradish vapors directly irritate the gastric or respiratory tract mucosa.

VVS commonly manifests for the first time at around age 13 years; however, the timing of that first occurrence can vary significantly among individuals (as in this case).³ The afferent aspect of a VVS episode is poorly understood, while the efferent aspect has been elucidated. A transient inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system results in vasodilatation, hypotension, and a temporary increase in vagal tone with bradycardia,^4-7 which leads to cerebral underperfusion and loss of consciousness.

The loss of consciousness may be caused by an emotional trigger (eg, sight of blood, cast removal,⁸ blood or platelet donations^9,10), a painful event (eg, an injection¹¹), an orthostatic trigger¹² (eg, prolonged standing), or visceral reflexes such as swallowing.¹³ In approximately 30% of cases, loss of consciousness is associated with memory loss.¹⁴ Loss of consciousness with VVS may be associated with injury in 33% of cases.¹⁵

Continue to: The recovery with awareness

The recovery with awareness of time, place, and person may be a feature of VVS, which would differentiate it from seizures and brainstem vascular events. Autonomic prodromal symptoms—including abdominal discomfort, pallor, sweating, and nausea—may precede the loss of consciousness.⁸

An evolutionary response?

VVS may have developed as a trait through evolution, although modern medicine treats it as a disease. Many potential explanations for VVS as a body defense mechanism have been proposed. Examples include fainting at the sight of blood, which developed during the Old Stone Age—a period with extreme human-to-human violence—or acting like a “possum playing dead” as a tactic designed to confuse an attacker.¹⁶

Vasovagal syncope may have developed as a trait through evolution, although modern medicine treats it as a disease.

Another theory involves clot production and suggests that VVS-induced hypotension is a defense against bleeding by improving clot formation.¹⁷

A psychological defense theory maintains that the fainting and memory loss are designed to prevent a painful or overwhelming experience from being remembered. None of these theories, however, explain orthostatic VVS.¹⁸

The brain defense theory could explain all forms of VVS. It postulates that hypotension causes decreased cerebral perfusion, which leads to syncope resulting in the body returning to a more orthostatic position with increased cerebral profusion.¹⁹

Continue to: The patient

The patient in this case was able to leave the restaurant on his own volition 30 minutes after the event and resume normal activities. Ten days later, an electrocardiogram was performed, with negative results. In this case, the use of a potassium-wasting diuretic exacerbated the risk of a fluid-deprived state, hypokalemia, and hypotension, possibly contributing to the syncope. The patient has since “gotten back on the horseradish” without ill effect.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consumers and health care providers should be aware of the risks associated with consumption of fresh horseradish and should allow it to rest prior to ingestion to allow some evaporation of its active ingredient. An old case report saved the patient from an unnecessary (and costly) emergency department visit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Terry J. Hannan, MBBS, FRACP, FACHI, FACMI for his critical review of the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Christoph U. Lehmann, MD, Clinical Informatics Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 56-year-old physician (CUL) visited a local seafood restaurant, after having fasted since the prior evening. He had a history of hypertension that was well controlled with lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide.

The physician and his party were seated outside, where the temperature was in the mid-70s. The group ordered oysters on the half shell accompanied by mignonette sauce, cocktail sauce, and horseradish. The physician ate an olive-size amount of horseradish with an oyster. He immediately complained of a sharp burning sensation in his stomach and remarked that the horseradish was significantly stronger than what he was accustomed to. Within 30 seconds, he noted an increased heart rate, weakness, and intense sweating. There was no increase in nasal secretions. Observers noted that he was very pale.

About 5 minutes after eating the horseradish, the physician leaned his head back and briefly lost consciousness. His wife, while supporting his head and checking his pulse, instructed other diners to call for emergency services, at which point the physician regained consciousness and the dispatcher was told that an ambulance was no longer necessary. Within a matter of minutes, all symptoms had abated, except for some mild weakness.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Ten minutes after the event, the physician identified his symptoms as a horseradish-­induced vasovagal syncope (VVS), based on a case report published in JAMA in 1988, which his wife found after he asked her to do an Internet search of his symptoms.¹

THE DISCUSSION

Horseradish’s active component is isothiocyanate. Horseradish-induced syncope is also called Seder syncope after the Jewish Passover holiday dinner at which observant Jews are required to eat “bitter herbs.”^1,2 This type of syncope is thought to occur when horseradish vapors directly irritate the gastric or respiratory tract mucosa.

VVS commonly manifests for the first time at around age 13 years; however, the timing of that first occurrence can vary significantly among individuals (as in this case).³ The afferent aspect of a VVS episode is poorly understood, while the efferent aspect has been elucidated. A transient inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system results in vasodilatation, hypotension, and a temporary increase in vagal tone with bradycardia,^4-7 which leads to cerebral underperfusion and loss of consciousness.

The loss of consciousness may be caused by an emotional trigger (eg, sight of blood, cast removal,⁸ blood or platelet donations^9,10), a painful event (eg, an injection¹¹), an orthostatic trigger¹² (eg, prolonged standing), or visceral reflexes such as swallowing.¹³ In approximately 30% of cases, loss of consciousness is associated with memory loss.¹⁴ Loss of consciousness with VVS may be associated with injury in 33% of cases.¹⁵

Continue to: The recovery with awareness

The recovery with awareness of time, place, and person may be a feature of VVS, which would differentiate it from seizures and brainstem vascular events. Autonomic prodromal symptoms—including abdominal discomfort, pallor, sweating, and nausea—may precede the loss of consciousness.⁸

An evolutionary response?

VVS may have developed as a trait through evolution, although modern medicine treats it as a disease. Many potential explanations for VVS as a body defense mechanism have been proposed. Examples include fainting at the sight of blood, which developed during the Old Stone Age—a period with extreme human-to-human violence—or acting like a “possum playing dead” as a tactic designed to confuse an attacker.¹⁶

Vasovagal syncope may have developed as a trait through evolution, although modern medicine treats it as a disease.

Another theory involves clot production and suggests that VVS-induced hypotension is a defense against bleeding by improving clot formation.¹⁷

A psychological defense theory maintains that the fainting and memory loss are designed to prevent a painful or overwhelming experience from being remembered. None of these theories, however, explain orthostatic VVS.¹⁸

The brain defense theory could explain all forms of VVS. It postulates that hypotension causes decreased cerebral perfusion, which leads to syncope resulting in the body returning to a more orthostatic position with increased cerebral profusion.¹⁹

Continue to: The patient

The patient in this case was able to leave the restaurant on his own volition 30 minutes after the event and resume normal activities. Ten days later, an electrocardiogram was performed, with negative results. In this case, the use of a potassium-wasting diuretic exacerbated the risk of a fluid-deprived state, hypokalemia, and hypotension, possibly contributing to the syncope. The patient has since “gotten back on the horseradish” without ill effect.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consumers and health care providers should be aware of the risks associated with consumption of fresh horseradish and should allow it to rest prior to ingestion to allow some evaporation of its active ingredient. An old case report saved the patient from an unnecessary (and costly) emergency department visit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Terry J. Hannan, MBBS, FRACP, FACHI, FACMI for his critical review of the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Christoph U. Lehmann, MD, Clinical Informatics Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390; [email protected]

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 48-year-old man is admitted to your family medicine service for cellulitis after failed outpatient therapy. He has presumed community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection of the left lower extremity and is receiving intravenous (IV) vancomycin. His BP this morning is 176/98 mm Hg, and the reading from the previous shift was 168/94 mm Hg. He is asymptomatic from this elevated BP. Based on protocol, his nurse is asking about treatment in response to the multiple elevated readings. How should you address the patient’s elevated BP, knowing that you will see him for a transition management appointment in 2 weeks?

Elevated BP is common in the adult inpatient setting. Prevalence estimates range from 25% to > 50%. Many factors can contribute to elevated BP in the acute illness setting, such as pain, anxiety, medication withdrawal, and volume status.^2,3

Treatment of elevated BP in outpatients is well researched, with evidence-based guidelines for physicians. That is not the case for treatment of asymptomatic elevated BP in the inpatient setting. Most published guidance on inpatient management of acutely elevated BP recommends IV medications, such as hydralazine or labetalol, although there is limited evidence to support such recommendations. There is minimal evidence for outcomes-based benefit in treating acute elevations of inpatient BP, such as reduced myocardial injury or stroke; however, there is some evidence of adverse outcomes, such as hypotension and prolonged hospital stays.^4-8

Although the possibility of intensifying antihypertensive therapy for those with known hypertension or those with presumed “new-onset” hypertension could theoretically lead to improved outcomes over the long term, there is little evidence to support this presumption. Rather, there is evidence that intensification of antihypertensive therapy at discharge is linked to short-term harms. This was demonstrated in a propensity-matched veteran cohort that included 4056 hospitalized older adults with hypertension (mean age, 77 years; 3961 men), equally split between those who received antihypertensive intensification at hospital discharge and those who did not. Within 30 days, patients receiving intensification had a higher risk of readmission (number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and serious adverse events (NNH = 63).⁹

The current study aimed to put all these pieces together by quantifying the prevalence of hypertension in hospitalized patients, characterizing clinician response to patients’ acutely elevated BP, and comparing both short- and long-term outcomes in patients treated for acute BP elevations while hospitalized vs those who were not. The study also assessed the potential effects of antihypertensive intensification at discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Treatment of acute hypertension was associated with end-organ injury

This retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study (N = 22,834) evaluated the electronic health records of all adult patients (age > 18 years) admitted to a medicine service with a noncardiovascular diagnosis over a 1-year period at 10 Cleveland Clinic hospitals, with 1 year of follow-up data.

Exclusion criteria included hospitalization for a cardiovascular diagnosis; admission for a cerebrovascular event or acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 days; pregnancy; length of stay of less than 2 days or more than 14 days; and lack of outpatient medication data. Patients were propensity-score matched using BP, demographic features, comorbidities, hospital shift, and time since admission. Exposure was defined as administration of IV antihypertensive medication or a new class of oral antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Outcomes were defined...

The 22,834 patients had a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (17.9) years; 12,993 (56.9%) were women, and 15,963 (69.9%) were White. Of the 17,821 (78%) who had at least 1 inpatient hypertensive systolic BP (SBP) episode, defined as an SBP ≥ 140 mm Hg, 5904 (33.1%) received a new treatment. Of those receiving a new treatment, 4378 (74.2%) received only oral treatment, and 1516 (25.7%) received at least 1 dose of IV medication with or without oral dosing.

Acute treatment of elevated BP in noncardiac inpatients was not beneficial, and treatment intensification at discharge did not improve BP control over the following year.

Using the propensity-matched sample (4520 treated for elevated BP matched to 4520 who were not treated), treated patients had higher rates of AKI (10.3% vs 7.9%; P < .001) and myocardial injury (1.2% vs 0.6%; P = .003). When assessed by SBP, nontreatment of BP was still superior up to an SBP of 199 mm Hg. At an SBP of ≥ 200 mm Hg, there was no difference in rates of AKI or MI between the treatment and nontreatment groups. There was no difference in stroke in either cohort, although the overall numbers were quite low.

Patients with and without antihypertensive intensification at discharge had similar rates of MI (0.1% vs 0.2%; P > .99) and stroke (0.5% vs 0.4%; P > .99) in a matched cohort at 30 days post discharge. At 1 year, BP control in the intensification vs no-intensification groups was nearly the same: maximum SBP was 157.2 mm Hg vs 157.8 mm Hg, respectively (P = .54) and maximum diastolic BP was 86.5 mm Hg vs 86.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .49).

WHAT’S NEW

Previous research is confirmed in a more diverse population

Whereas previous research showed no benefit to intensification of treatment among hospitalized older male patients, this large, retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study demonstrated the short- and long-term effects of treating acute, asymptomatic BP elevations in a younger, more generalizable population that included women. Regardless of treatment modality, there appeared to be more harm than good from treating these BP elevations.

In addition, the study appears to corroborate previous research showing that intensification of BP treatment at discharge did not lead to better outcomes.⁹ At the very least, the study makes a reasonable argument that treating acute BP elevations in noncardiac patients in the hospital setting is not beneficial.

CAVEATS

Impact of existing therapy could be underestimated

This study had several important limitations. First, 23% of treated participants were excluded from the propensity analysis without justification from the authors. Additionally, there was no reporting of missing data and how it was managed. The authors’ definition of treatment excluded dose intensification of existing antihypertensive therapy, which would undercount the number of treated patients. However, this could underestimate the actual harms of the acute antihypertensive therapy. The authors also included patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in the study population, even though they already may have been taking antihypertensive agents.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential delays in translating findings to patient care

Although several recent studies have shown the potential benefit of not treating asymptomatic acute BP elevations in inpatients, incorporating that information into electronic health record order sets or clinical decision support, and disseminating it to clinical end users, will take time. In the interim, despite these findings, patients may continue to receive IV or oral medications to treat acute, asymptomatic BP elevations while hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 48-year-old man is admitted to your family medicine service for cellulitis after failed outpatient therapy. He has presumed community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection of the left lower extremity and is receiving intravenous (IV) vancomycin. His BP this morning is 176/98 mm Hg, and the reading from the previous shift was 168/94 mm Hg. He is asymptomatic from this elevated BP. Based on protocol, his nurse is asking about treatment in response to the multiple elevated readings. How should you address the patient’s elevated BP, knowing that you will see him for a transition management appointment in 2 weeks?

Elevated BP is common in the adult inpatient setting. Prevalence estimates range from 25% to > 50%. Many factors can contribute to elevated BP in the acute illness setting, such as pain, anxiety, medication withdrawal, and volume status.^2,3

Treatment of elevated BP in outpatients is well researched, with evidence-based guidelines for physicians. That is not the case for treatment of asymptomatic elevated BP in the inpatient setting. Most published guidance on inpatient management of acutely elevated BP recommends IV medications, such as hydralazine or labetalol, although there is limited evidence to support such recommendations. There is minimal evidence for outcomes-based benefit in treating acute elevations of inpatient BP, such as reduced myocardial injury or stroke; however, there is some evidence of adverse outcomes, such as hypotension and prolonged hospital stays.^4-8

Although the possibility of intensifying antihypertensive therapy for those with known hypertension or those with presumed “new-onset” hypertension could theoretically lead to improved outcomes over the long term, there is little evidence to support this presumption. Rather, there is evidence that intensification of antihypertensive therapy at discharge is linked to short-term harms. This was demonstrated in a propensity-matched veteran cohort that included 4056 hospitalized older adults with hypertension (mean age, 77 years; 3961 men), equally split between those who received antihypertensive intensification at hospital discharge and those who did not. Within 30 days, patients receiving intensification had a higher risk of readmission (number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and serious adverse events (NNH = 63).⁹

The current study aimed to put all these pieces together by quantifying the prevalence of hypertension in hospitalized patients, characterizing clinician response to patients’ acutely elevated BP, and comparing both short- and long-term outcomes in patients treated for acute BP elevations while hospitalized vs those who were not. The study also assessed the potential effects of antihypertensive intensification at discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Treatment of acute hypertension was associated with end-organ injury

This retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study (N = 22,834) evaluated the electronic health records of all adult patients (age > 18 years) admitted to a medicine service with a noncardiovascular diagnosis over a 1-year period at 10 Cleveland Clinic hospitals, with 1 year of follow-up data.

Exclusion criteria included hospitalization for a cardiovascular diagnosis; admission for a cerebrovascular event or acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 days; pregnancy; length of stay of less than 2 days or more than 14 days; and lack of outpatient medication data. Patients were propensity-score matched using BP, demographic features, comorbidities, hospital shift, and time since admission. Exposure was defined as administration of IV antihypertensive medication or a new class of oral antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Outcomes were defined...

The 22,834 patients had a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (17.9) years; 12,993 (56.9%) were women, and 15,963 (69.9%) were White. Of the 17,821 (78%) who had at least 1 inpatient hypertensive systolic BP (SBP) episode, defined as an SBP ≥ 140 mm Hg, 5904 (33.1%) received a new treatment. Of those receiving a new treatment, 4378 (74.2%) received only oral treatment, and 1516 (25.7%) received at least 1 dose of IV medication with or without oral dosing.

Acute treatment of elevated BP in noncardiac inpatients was not beneficial, and treatment intensification at discharge did not improve BP control over the following year.

Using the propensity-matched sample (4520 treated for elevated BP matched to 4520 who were not treated), treated patients had higher rates of AKI (10.3% vs 7.9%; P < .001) and myocardial injury (1.2% vs 0.6%; P = .003). When assessed by SBP, nontreatment of BP was still superior up to an SBP of 199 mm Hg. At an SBP of ≥ 200 mm Hg, there was no difference in rates of AKI or MI between the treatment and nontreatment groups. There was no difference in stroke in either cohort, although the overall numbers were quite low.

Patients with and without antihypertensive intensification at discharge had similar rates of MI (0.1% vs 0.2%; P > .99) and stroke (0.5% vs 0.4%; P > .99) in a matched cohort at 30 days post discharge. At 1 year, BP control in the intensification vs no-intensification groups was nearly the same: maximum SBP was 157.2 mm Hg vs 157.8 mm Hg, respectively (P = .54) and maximum diastolic BP was 86.5 mm Hg vs 86.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .49).

WHAT’S NEW

Previous research is confirmed in a more diverse population

Whereas previous research showed no benefit to intensification of treatment among hospitalized older male patients, this large, retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study demonstrated the short- and long-term effects of treating acute, asymptomatic BP elevations in a younger, more generalizable population that included women. Regardless of treatment modality, there appeared to be more harm than good from treating these BP elevations.

In addition, the study appears to corroborate previous research showing that intensification of BP treatment at discharge did not lead to better outcomes.⁹ At the very least, the study makes a reasonable argument that treating acute BP elevations in noncardiac patients in the hospital setting is not beneficial.

CAVEATS

Impact of existing therapy could be underestimated

This study had several important limitations. First, 23% of treated participants were excluded from the propensity analysis without justification from the authors. Additionally, there was no reporting of missing data and how it was managed. The authors’ definition of treatment excluded dose intensification of existing antihypertensive therapy, which would undercount the number of treated patients. However, this could underestimate the actual harms of the acute antihypertensive therapy. The authors also included patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in the study population, even though they already may have been taking antihypertensive agents.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential delays in translating findings to patient care

Although several recent studies have shown the potential benefit of not treating asymptomatic acute BP elevations in inpatients, incorporating that information into electronic health record order sets or clinical decision support, and disseminating it to clinical end users, will take time. In the interim, despite these findings, patients may continue to receive IV or oral medications to treat acute, asymptomatic BP elevations while hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 48-year-old man is admitted to your family medicine service for cellulitis after failed outpatient therapy. He has presumed community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection of the left lower extremity and is receiving intravenous (IV) vancomycin. His BP this morning is 176/98 mm Hg, and the reading from the previous shift was 168/94 mm Hg. He is asymptomatic from this elevated BP. Based on protocol, his nurse is asking about treatment in response to the multiple elevated readings. How should you address the patient’s elevated BP, knowing that you will see him for a transition management appointment in 2 weeks?

Elevated BP is common in the adult inpatient setting. Prevalence estimates range from 25% to > 50%. Many factors can contribute to elevated BP in the acute illness setting, such as pain, anxiety, medication withdrawal, and volume status.^2,3

Treatment of elevated BP in outpatients is well researched, with evidence-based guidelines for physicians. That is not the case for treatment of asymptomatic elevated BP in the inpatient setting. Most published guidance on inpatient management of acutely elevated BP recommends IV medications, such as hydralazine or labetalol, although there is limited evidence to support such recommendations. There is minimal evidence for outcomes-based benefit in treating acute elevations of inpatient BP, such as reduced myocardial injury or stroke; however, there is some evidence of adverse outcomes, such as hypotension and prolonged hospital stays.^4-8

Although the possibility of intensifying antihypertensive therapy for those with known hypertension or those with presumed “new-onset” hypertension could theoretically lead to improved outcomes over the long term, there is little evidence to support this presumption. Rather, there is evidence that intensification of antihypertensive therapy at discharge is linked to short-term harms. This was demonstrated in a propensity-matched veteran cohort that included 4056 hospitalized older adults with hypertension (mean age, 77 years; 3961 men), equally split between those who received antihypertensive intensification at hospital discharge and those who did not. Within 30 days, patients receiving intensification had a higher risk of readmission (number needed to harm [NNH] = 27) and serious adverse events (NNH = 63).⁹

The current study aimed to put all these pieces together by quantifying the prevalence of hypertension in hospitalized patients, characterizing clinician response to patients’ acutely elevated BP, and comparing both short- and long-term outcomes in patients treated for acute BP elevations while hospitalized vs those who were not. The study also assessed the potential effects of antihypertensive intensification at discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Treatment of acute hypertension was associated with end-organ injury

This retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study (N = 22,834) evaluated the electronic health records of all adult patients (age > 18 years) admitted to a medicine service with a noncardiovascular diagnosis over a 1-year period at 10 Cleveland Clinic hospitals, with 1 year of follow-up data.

Exclusion criteria included hospitalization for a cardiovascular diagnosis; admission for a cerebrovascular event or acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 days; pregnancy; length of stay of less than 2 days or more than 14 days; and lack of outpatient medication data. Patients were propensity-score matched using BP, demographic features, comorbidities, hospital shift, and time since admission. Exposure was defined as administration of IV antihypertensive medication or a new class of oral antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Outcomes were defined...

The 22,834 patients had a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (17.9) years; 12,993 (56.9%) were women, and 15,963 (69.9%) were White. Of the 17,821 (78%) who had at least 1 inpatient hypertensive systolic BP (SBP) episode, defined as an SBP ≥ 140 mm Hg, 5904 (33.1%) received a new treatment. Of those receiving a new treatment, 4378 (74.2%) received only oral treatment, and 1516 (25.7%) received at least 1 dose of IV medication with or without oral dosing.

Acute treatment of elevated BP in noncardiac inpatients was not beneficial, and treatment intensification at discharge did not improve BP control over the following year.

Using the propensity-matched sample (4520 treated for elevated BP matched to 4520 who were not treated), treated patients had higher rates of AKI (10.3% vs 7.9%; P < .001) and myocardial injury (1.2% vs 0.6%; P = .003). When assessed by SBP, nontreatment of BP was still superior up to an SBP of 199 mm Hg. At an SBP of ≥ 200 mm Hg, there was no difference in rates of AKI or MI between the treatment and nontreatment groups. There was no difference in stroke in either cohort, although the overall numbers were quite low.

Patients with and without antihypertensive intensification at discharge had similar rates of MI (0.1% vs 0.2%; P > .99) and stroke (0.5% vs 0.4%; P > .99) in a matched cohort at 30 days post discharge. At 1 year, BP control in the intensification vs no-intensification groups was nearly the same: maximum SBP was 157.2 mm Hg vs 157.8 mm Hg, respectively (P = .54) and maximum diastolic BP was 86.5 mm Hg vs 86.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .49).

WHAT’S NEW

Previous research is confirmed in a more diverse population

Whereas previous research showed no benefit to intensification of treatment among hospitalized older male patients, this large, retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study demonstrated the short- and long-term effects of treating acute, asymptomatic BP elevations in a younger, more generalizable population that included women. Regardless of treatment modality, there appeared to be more harm than good from treating these BP elevations.

In addition, the study appears to corroborate previous research showing that intensification of BP treatment at discharge did not lead to better outcomes.⁹ At the very least, the study makes a reasonable argument that treating acute BP elevations in noncardiac patients in the hospital setting is not beneficial.

CAVEATS

Impact of existing therapy could be underestimated

This study had several important limitations. First, 23% of treated participants were excluded from the propensity analysis without justification from the authors. Additionally, there was no reporting of missing data and how it was managed. The authors’ definition of treatment excluded dose intensification of existing antihypertensive therapy, which would undercount the number of treated patients. However, this could underestimate the actual harms of the acute antihypertensive therapy. The authors also included patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in the study population, even though they already may have been taking antihypertensive agents.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential delays in translating findings to patient care

Although several recent studies have shown the potential benefit of not treating asymptomatic acute BP elevations in inpatients, incorporating that information into electronic health record order sets or clinical decision support, and disseminating it to clinical end users, will take time. In the interim, despite these findings, patients may continue to receive IV or oral medications to treat acute, asymptomatic BP elevations while hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses.

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

A trip to the cath lab for possible revascularization after a positive stress test, compared with a wait-and-see approach backed by optimal medications, did not improve 5-year survival for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial’s extension study, ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND.

The long-term results, from the same 777 patients followed for an average of 2.2 years in the main trial, are consistent with the overall findings of no survival advantage with an initially invasive strategy, compared with one that is initially conservative. The finding applies to patients like those in the trial who had moderate to severe ischemia at stress testing and whose CKD put them in an especially high-risk and little-studied coronary artery disease (CAD) category.

Indeed, in a reflection of that high-risk status, 5-year all-cause mortality reached about 40% and cardiovascular (CV) mortality approached 30%, with no significant differences between patients in the invasive- and conservative-strategy groups.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Those numbers arguably put CKD’s effect on CAD survival in about the same league as an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. For context, all-cause mortality over 3-4 years was about 32% in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial of such patients with ischemic reduced-EF cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were revascularized, observed Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA.

Yet in ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, “you’re seeing in a group of patients, with largely preserved EF but advanced CKD, a mortality rate close to 40% at 5 years,” said Dr. Bangalore of New York University.

Although the study doesn’t show benefit from the initially invasive approach in CKD patients with stable CAD, for those with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), it seems to suggest that “at least the invasive strategy is safe,” Dr. Bangalore said during a press conference preceding his presentation of the study Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Barcelona.

REVIVED-BCIS2 was also presented at the ESC sessions on Aug. 27, as reported by this news organization.

ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND “is a large trial and a very well-done trial. The results are robust, and they should influence clinical practice,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said as the invited discussant after Dr. Bangalore’s presentation.

“The main message here, really, is don’t just go looking for ischemia, at least with the modalities used in this trial, in your CKD patients as a routine practice, and then try to stomp out that ischemia with revascularization,” Dr. Bhatt said. “The right thing to do in these high-risk patients is to focus on lifestyle modification and intensive medical therapy.”

A caveat, he said, is that the trial’s results don’t apply to the types of patients excluded from it, including those with recent ACS and those who are highly symptomatic or have an EF of less than 35%.

“Those CKD patients likely benefit from an invasive strategy with anatomically appropriate revascularization,” whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery, Dr. Bhatt said.

At a median follow-up of 5 years in the extension study, the rates of death from any cause were 40.6% for patients in the invasive-strategy group and 37.4% for those in the conservative-strategy group. That yielded a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.41; P = .32) after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes status, EF, dialysis status, and – for patients not on dialysis – baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate.

The rates of CV death were 29% for patients managed invasively and 27% for those initially managed conservatively, for a similarly adjusted HR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .75).

In subgroup analyses, Dr. Bangalore reported, there were no significant differences in all-cause or CV mortality by diabetes status, by severity of baseline ischemia, or by whether the patient had recently experienced new or more frequent angina at study entry, was on guideline-directed medical therapy at baseline, or was on dialysis.

Among the contributions of ISCHEMIA-CKD and its 5-year extension study, Dr. Bangalore told this news organization, is that the relative safety of revascularization they showed may help to counter “renalism,” that is, the aversion to invasive intervention in patients with advanced CKD in clinical practice.

For example, if a patient with advanced CKD presents with an acute myocardial infarction, “people are hesitant to take them to the cath lab,” Dr. Bangalore said. But “if you follow protocols, if you follow strategies to minimize the risk, you can safely go ahead and do it.”

But in patients with stable CAD, as the ISCHEMIA-CKD studies show, “routinely revascularizing them may not have significant benefits.”

ISCHEMIC-CKD and its extension study were funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore discloses receiving research grants from NHLBI and serving as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, and Reata. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain ultraprocessed foods – especially candy, prepackaged pastries, and frozen desserts – could be “gateway foods” for adolescents, leading them to increase their intake of other unhealthy foods, a new study suggests.

“For teens, gateway ultraprocessed foods (candy, store pastries, frozen desserts) should be prioritized for preventive dietary interventions as they increase intake across all other UPFs,” lead researcher Maria Balhara said in an interview.

“The good news,” said Ms. Balhara, is that even small changes, such as reducing how often gateway foods are consumed, may reduce overall intake of unhealthy foods and have a “big impact” on overall health.

Ms. Balhara has a unique perspective on adolescent eating habits: She’s 16 years old, from Florida, and conducted the study while dual-enrolled at Broward College and Cooper City High School.

Her study was released Sept. 7 ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.
 

Blame the pandemic?

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including weight gain, hypertension, and increased risk for heart disease and premature death.

For her research, Ms. Balhara asked 315 teenagers (42% male) from 12 high schools in South Florida how often they consumed UPFs over two time periods – before COVID in 2019 and after COVID restrictions were eased in 2022 – using a survey that she developed called the Processed Intake Evaluation (PIE).

More than 2 in 5 teens (43%) increased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.

During this time, increased consumption of frozen desserts was associated with an 11% increase in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas increased consumption of prepackaged pastries and candy was associated with a 12% and 31%, respectively, increase in consumption of all other UPFs, Ms. Balhara found.

Encouragingly, 57% of teens decreased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.

During this time, decreased consumption of processed meats was associated with an 8% decrease in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas decreased consumption of white bread and biscuits was associated with a 9% and 10%, respectively, decrease in consumption of all other UPFs.

The results provide initial evidence for a new “gateway food model,” Ms. Balhara told this news organization, in which certain UPFs, when increased, drive overall consumption of all UPFs among teens.

Limitations of the study include the self-reported dietary data and the fact that the PIE survey has not been validated.
 

Not all UPFs are bad

“I commend Ms. Balhara for her project, which highlights the importance of establishing good dietary patterns early in life,” Donna K. Arnett, PhD, past president of the AHA, said in a news release.

“The relationship between poor dietary quality and cardiovascular risk factors is well-established. While this is a small, preliminary study, it’s an important topic to continue to investigate and help us understand ways we can influence dietary behaviors to promote optimal cardiovascular health for all ages,” said Dr. Arnett, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Offering perspective on the study, Taylor C. Wallace, PhD, with the department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., made the point that “food processing and ultraprocessed foods aren’t the problem. The problem is the types of ultraprocessed foods on the market that people consume.”

“Remember, non-fat, vitamin D fortified yogurt is also ‘ultra-processed,’ and it’s very healthy,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Wallace said that it’s no surprise that teens increased their intake of UPFs during the pandemic.

“Of course, people increased processed food intake during the pandemic. Processed foods are shelf stable at a time when grocery stores were running out of things and supply chains weren’t able to keep up. Also, many were depressed and use food to indulge,” he noted.

The study had no funding. Ms. Balhara has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

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

Certain ultraprocessed foods – especially candy, prepackaged pastries, and frozen desserts – could be “gateway foods” for adolescents, leading them to increase their intake of other unhealthy foods, a new study suggests.

“For teens, gateway ultraprocessed foods (candy, store pastries, frozen desserts) should be prioritized for preventive dietary interventions as they increase intake across all other UPFs,” lead researcher Maria Balhara said in an interview.

“The good news,” said Ms. Balhara, is that even small changes, such as reducing how often gateway foods are consumed, may reduce overall intake of unhealthy foods and have a “big impact” on overall health.

Ms. Balhara has a unique perspective on adolescent eating habits: She’s 16 years old, from Florida, and conducted the study while dual-enrolled at Broward College and Cooper City High School.

Her study was released Sept. 7 ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.
 

Blame the pandemic?

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including weight gain, hypertension, and increased risk for heart disease and premature death.

For her research, Ms. Balhara asked 315 teenagers (42% male) from 12 high schools in South Florida how often they consumed UPFs over two time periods – before COVID in 2019 and after COVID restrictions were eased in 2022 – using a survey that she developed called the Processed Intake Evaluation (PIE).

More than 2 in 5 teens (43%) increased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.

During this time, increased consumption of frozen desserts was associated with an 11% increase in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas increased consumption of prepackaged pastries and candy was associated with a 12% and 31%, respectively, increase in consumption of all other UPFs, Ms. Balhara found.

Encouragingly, 57% of teens decreased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.

During this time, decreased consumption of processed meats was associated with an 8% decrease in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas decreased consumption of white bread and biscuits was associated with a 9% and 10%, respectively, decrease in consumption of all other UPFs.

The results provide initial evidence for a new “gateway food model,” Ms. Balhara told this news organization, in which certain UPFs, when increased, drive overall consumption of all UPFs among teens.

Limitations of the study include the self-reported dietary data and the fact that the PIE survey has not been validated.
 

Not all UPFs are bad

“I commend Ms. Balhara for her project, which highlights the importance of establishing good dietary patterns early in life,” Donna K. Arnett, PhD, past president of the AHA, said in a news release.

“The relationship between poor dietary quality and cardiovascular risk factors is well-established. While this is a small, preliminary study, it’s an important topic to continue to investigate and help us understand ways we can influence dietary behaviors to promote optimal cardiovascular health for all ages,” said Dr. Arnett, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Offering perspective on the study, Taylor C. Wallace, PhD, with the department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., made the point that “food processing and ultraprocessed foods aren’t the problem. The problem is the types of ultraprocessed foods on the market that people consume.”

“Remember, non-fat, vitamin D fortified yogurt is also ‘ultra-processed,’ and it’s very healthy,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Wallace said that it’s no surprise that teens increased their intake of UPFs during the pandemic.

“Of course, people increased processed food intake during the pandemic. Processed foods are shelf stable at a time when grocery stores were running out of things and supply chains weren’t able to keep up. Also, many were depressed and use food to indulge,” he noted.

The study had no funding. Ms. Balhara has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

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

Certain ultraprocessed foods – especially candy, prepackaged pastries, and frozen desserts – could be “gateway foods” for adolescents, leading them to increase their intake of other unhealthy foods, a new study suggests.

“For teens, gateway ultraprocessed foods (candy, store pastries, frozen desserts) should be prioritized for preventive dietary interventions as they increase intake across all other UPFs,” lead researcher Maria Balhara said in an interview.

“The good news,” said Ms. Balhara, is that even small changes, such as reducing how often gateway foods are consumed, may reduce overall intake of unhealthy foods and have a “big impact” on overall health.

Ms. Balhara has a unique perspective on adolescent eating habits: She’s 16 years old, from Florida, and conducted the study while dual-enrolled at Broward College and Cooper City High School.

Her study was released Sept. 7 ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2022 in San Diego.
 

Blame the pandemic?

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including weight gain, hypertension, and increased risk for heart disease and premature death.

For her research, Ms. Balhara asked 315 teenagers (42% male) from 12 high schools in South Florida how often they consumed UPFs over two time periods – before COVID in 2019 and after COVID restrictions were eased in 2022 – using a survey that she developed called the Processed Intake Evaluation (PIE).

More than 2 in 5 teens (43%) increased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.

During this time, increased consumption of frozen desserts was associated with an 11% increase in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas increased consumption of prepackaged pastries and candy was associated with a 12% and 31%, respectively, increase in consumption of all other UPFs, Ms. Balhara found.

Encouragingly, 57% of teens decreased their consumption of UPFs between 2019 and 2022.

During this time, decreased consumption of processed meats was associated with an 8% decrease in consumption of all other UPFs, whereas decreased consumption of white bread and biscuits was associated with a 9% and 10%, respectively, decrease in consumption of all other UPFs.

The results provide initial evidence for a new “gateway food model,” Ms. Balhara told this news organization, in which certain UPFs, when increased, drive overall consumption of all UPFs among teens.

Limitations of the study include the self-reported dietary data and the fact that the PIE survey has not been validated.
 

Not all UPFs are bad

“I commend Ms. Balhara for her project, which highlights the importance of establishing good dietary patterns early in life,” Donna K. Arnett, PhD, past president of the AHA, said in a news release.

“The relationship between poor dietary quality and cardiovascular risk factors is well-established. While this is a small, preliminary study, it’s an important topic to continue to investigate and help us understand ways we can influence dietary behaviors to promote optimal cardiovascular health for all ages,” said Dr. Arnett, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Offering perspective on the study, Taylor C. Wallace, PhD, with the department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., made the point that “food processing and ultraprocessed foods aren’t the problem. The problem is the types of ultraprocessed foods on the market that people consume.”

“Remember, non-fat, vitamin D fortified yogurt is also ‘ultra-processed,’ and it’s very healthy,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Wallace said that it’s no surprise that teens increased their intake of UPFs during the pandemic.

“Of course, people increased processed food intake during the pandemic. Processed foods are shelf stable at a time when grocery stores were running out of things and supply chains weren’t able to keep up. Also, many were depressed and use food to indulge,” he noted.

The study had no funding. Ms. Balhara has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of Think Healthy Group; chief food and nutrition scientist with Produce for Better Health Foundation; editor, Journal of Dietary Supplements; deputy editor, Journal of the American College of Nutrition; nutrition section editor, Annals of Medicine; and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

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