Cardiology

BARCELONA – The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) became the third agent from the class to show evidence for efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in results from more than 6,200 randomized patients in the DELIVER trial.

These results proved that dapagliflozin treatment benefits patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular function, when considered in tandem with previously reported findings in the DAPA-HF trial that tested the same drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The DELIVER results for dapagliflozin also highlighted an apparent class effect for heart failure from agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, because of similar, prior findings for two other drugs in the class: empagliflozin (Jardiance) and sotagliflozin (approved in Europe and sold under the name Zynquista).

The upshot, said experts, is that the DELIVER results have further solidified a new paradigm for treating patients with heart failure that is much more agnostic when it comes to left ventricular function and underscores the need to quickly start SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in patients as soon as they receive a heart failure diagnosis, without the need to first measure and consider a patient’s left ventricular ejection fraction.

The new data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said Scott D. Solomon, MD, who presented the primary results from the DELIVER trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous publication of the findings occurred online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

Combined analysis of the DELIVER results with the findings from DAPA-HF in a prespecified analysis that included a total of 11,007 patients with heart failure across the full spectrum of ejection fraction values (with individual patients having values as low as less than 20% or as high as more than 70%) showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment for significantly reducing the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by about 22%, compared with placebo, across the complete range of this ejection fraction continuum.

The consistency of the benefit, regardless of left ventricular function, “is important clinically, as patients often have to wait for a heart scan to measure ejection fraction and decide on which therapies are indicated,” said Pardeep S. Jhund, MBChB, PhD, who reported this analysis in a separate talk at the congress and in a simultaneous publicationonline in Nature Medicine. Provided patients have no contraindications to treatment with dapagliflozin or another evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor, prescribing this class prior to imaging to assess ejection fraction “speeds access to this life-saving medication,” said Dr. Jhund, a professor of cardiology and epidemiology at the University of Glasgow.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

“The striking consistency of effect across the entire ejection fraction range” from SGLT2 inhibitors heralds a “swan song for ejection fraction,” commented Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center of the University Hospital of Zürich and designated discussant for Dr. Vaduganathan’s report. He also predicted that the medical societies that produce recommendations for managing patient with heart failure will soon, based on the accumulated data, give SGLT2 inhibitors a strong recommendation for use on most heart failure patients, sentiments echoed by several other discussants at the meeting and by editorialists who wrote about the newly published studies.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are the bedrock of therapy for heart failure regardless of ejection fraction or care setting,” wrote Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and Janani Rangaswami, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the combined analysis published by Dr. Vaduganathan.

DELIVER was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Jhund has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere. Dr. Rangaswami has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Eli Lilly, and she has been an advisor to Procyrion.

BARCELONA – The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) became the third agent from the class to show evidence for efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in results from more than 6,200 randomized patients in the DELIVER trial.

These results proved that dapagliflozin treatment benefits patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular function, when considered in tandem with previously reported findings in the DAPA-HF trial that tested the same drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The DELIVER results for dapagliflozin also highlighted an apparent class effect for heart failure from agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, because of similar, prior findings for two other drugs in the class: empagliflozin (Jardiance) and sotagliflozin (approved in Europe and sold under the name Zynquista).

The upshot, said experts, is that the DELIVER results have further solidified a new paradigm for treating patients with heart failure that is much more agnostic when it comes to left ventricular function and underscores the need to quickly start SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in patients as soon as they receive a heart failure diagnosis, without the need to first measure and consider a patient’s left ventricular ejection fraction.

The new data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said Scott D. Solomon, MD, who presented the primary results from the DELIVER trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous publication of the findings occurred online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

Combined analysis of the DELIVER results with the findings from DAPA-HF in a prespecified analysis that included a total of 11,007 patients with heart failure across the full spectrum of ejection fraction values (with individual patients having values as low as less than 20% or as high as more than 70%) showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment for significantly reducing the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by about 22%, compared with placebo, across the complete range of this ejection fraction continuum.

The consistency of the benefit, regardless of left ventricular function, “is important clinically, as patients often have to wait for a heart scan to measure ejection fraction and decide on which therapies are indicated,” said Pardeep S. Jhund, MBChB, PhD, who reported this analysis in a separate talk at the congress and in a simultaneous publicationonline in Nature Medicine. Provided patients have no contraindications to treatment with dapagliflozin or another evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor, prescribing this class prior to imaging to assess ejection fraction “speeds access to this life-saving medication,” said Dr. Jhund, a professor of cardiology and epidemiology at the University of Glasgow.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

“The striking consistency of effect across the entire ejection fraction range” from SGLT2 inhibitors heralds a “swan song for ejection fraction,” commented Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center of the University Hospital of Zürich and designated discussant for Dr. Vaduganathan’s report. He also predicted that the medical societies that produce recommendations for managing patient with heart failure will soon, based on the accumulated data, give SGLT2 inhibitors a strong recommendation for use on most heart failure patients, sentiments echoed by several other discussants at the meeting and by editorialists who wrote about the newly published studies.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are the bedrock of therapy for heart failure regardless of ejection fraction or care setting,” wrote Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and Janani Rangaswami, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the combined analysis published by Dr. Vaduganathan.

DELIVER was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Jhund has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere. Dr. Rangaswami has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Eli Lilly, and she has been an advisor to Procyrion.

BARCELONA – The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) became the third agent from the class to show evidence for efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in results from more than 6,200 randomized patients in the DELIVER trial.

These results proved that dapagliflozin treatment benefits patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular function, when considered in tandem with previously reported findings in the DAPA-HF trial that tested the same drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The DELIVER results for dapagliflozin also highlighted an apparent class effect for heart failure from agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, because of similar, prior findings for two other drugs in the class: empagliflozin (Jardiance) and sotagliflozin (approved in Europe and sold under the name Zynquista).

The upshot, said experts, is that the DELIVER results have further solidified a new paradigm for treating patients with heart failure that is much more agnostic when it comes to left ventricular function and underscores the need to quickly start SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in patients as soon as they receive a heart failure diagnosis, without the need to first measure and consider a patient’s left ventricular ejection fraction.

The new data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said Scott D. Solomon, MD, who presented the primary results from the DELIVER trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous publication of the findings occurred online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

Combined analysis of the DELIVER results with the findings from DAPA-HF in a prespecified analysis that included a total of 11,007 patients with heart failure across the full spectrum of ejection fraction values (with individual patients having values as low as less than 20% or as high as more than 70%) showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment for significantly reducing the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by about 22%, compared with placebo, across the complete range of this ejection fraction continuum.

The consistency of the benefit, regardless of left ventricular function, “is important clinically, as patients often have to wait for a heart scan to measure ejection fraction and decide on which therapies are indicated,” said Pardeep S. Jhund, MBChB, PhD, who reported this analysis in a separate talk at the congress and in a simultaneous publicationonline in Nature Medicine. Provided patients have no contraindications to treatment with dapagliflozin or another evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor, prescribing this class prior to imaging to assess ejection fraction “speeds access to this life-saving medication,” said Dr. Jhund, a professor of cardiology and epidemiology at the University of Glasgow.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

“The striking consistency of effect across the entire ejection fraction range” from SGLT2 inhibitors heralds a “swan song for ejection fraction,” commented Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center of the University Hospital of Zürich and designated discussant for Dr. Vaduganathan’s report. He also predicted that the medical societies that produce recommendations for managing patient with heart failure will soon, based on the accumulated data, give SGLT2 inhibitors a strong recommendation for use on most heart failure patients, sentiments echoed by several other discussants at the meeting and by editorialists who wrote about the newly published studies.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are the bedrock of therapy for heart failure regardless of ejection fraction or care setting,” wrote Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and Janani Rangaswami, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the combined analysis published by Dr. Vaduganathan.

DELIVER was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Jhund has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere. Dr. Rangaswami has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Eli Lilly, and she has been an advisor to Procyrion.

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

BARCELONA – Patients with hypertension who took their antihypertensive medication in the evening or in the morning had similar rates of cardiovascular events over the following 5 years, in the much-anticipated TIME trial.

The trial, which contradicts several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing may be better, was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. 

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

“The key message from this study is that taking antihypertensive medication in the evening makes no difference at all from taking it in the morning for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and vascular deaths,” concluded TIME lead investigator Tom MacDonald, MBChB, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology & pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee (Scotland).

The hazard ratio was 0.95 for the primary endpoint, a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or vascular death, in the intention-to-treat population.

Similar results, with a hazard ratio around 1, were seen for all the secondary outcomes and in all subgroups.

“There is nothing to see – not a smidge of a difference – in the primary outcome or any of the secondary outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald commented.

The study also showed that evening dosing was not harmful in terms of falls or other adverse effects. Dr. MacDonald explained that taking the medication at night could result in an increase in nocturnal hypotension that may translate into more dizziness and falls if patients get up to use the bathroom during the night. “But, if anything, there were more dizzy turns during the day. The rate of fractures and hospitalization for fractures were identical in the two groups,” he reported.

“Our take-home message is that patients can take their blood pressure tablets at any time they like – whenever is most convenient – as long as they take them. It’s probably best to get into a routine of taking your tablets at the same time every day. That way you are more likely to remember to take them – but it won’t matter if that is in the morning or in the evening,” he said. 

Non-dippers

Dr. MacDonald explained that the rationale for the study was that in some patients blood pressure does not drop at night, a group known as “non-dippers,” and nighttime blood pressure is the best predictor of bad outcomes. In addition, previous studies have suggested that evening dosing of antihypertensives reduces nighttime blood pressure more effectively than daytime dosing.

“We and others thought that giving medication in the evening so that its peak effect occurs during the night might be beneficial,” he said. “We did the trial because if it had turned out that taking tablets in the evening was beneficial, it would have been one of the cheapest and most cost-effective interventions known to man. It is a nice hypothesis and most people thought this would turn out with a benefit, but it actually didn’t.”

The study did find some differences in the blood pressure profile between the two dosing schedules.

“Our results show that when antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning, then blood pressure is higher in the morning and lower in the evening. With evening dosing, blood pressure is lower in the morning and higher in the evening. It’s not a huge difference – just 1-2 mm Hg – and this didn’t translate into any difference in outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald said. 

“Ideally we need medication that lowers blood pressure effectively over the whole 24-hour period. That is where the push should be,” he added.

The TIME study randomized 21,104 patients with treated hypertension to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or in the evening. Baseline characteristics show the average age of participants was 65 years, 14% had diabetes, 4% were smokers, 13% had prior cardiovascular disease, and mean blood pressure at entry was 135/79 mmHg.

TIME was a pragmatic study, with participants recruited from primary and secondary care registering on the Internet, and information on hospitalizations and deaths obtained from participants by email and through record linkage to national databases, with further data gathered from family doctors and hospitals and independently adjudicated by a blinded committee.

The median follow-up duration was 5.2 years, but some patients were followed for over 9 years.

The primary endpoint occurred in 362 (3.4%) participants in the evening-dosing group (0.69 events per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3.7%) in the morning-dosing group (0.72 events per 100 patient-years), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

What to recommend in clinical practice?

Outside commentators had mixed opinions on how the TIME results should be applied to clinical practice.

Discussant of the TIME study at the ESC Hotline session, Rhian Touyz, MBBCh, University of Glasgow (Scotland), said the trial asked a “very pertinent” question and the data “are certainly provocative.”

She cited several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing improved nighttime blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular events.

“The finding of no difference in event rate in the TIME study is therefore very intriguing.”

She pointed out that other studies have shown benefit of nighttime dosing in certain patient groups such as those with sleep apnea, non-dippers, and those with nocturnal hypertension.  

“With all these previous data, we have to ask why the TIME trial has produced this unexpected result,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald replied that the study was completely neutral. “That is the result, and I believe it is definitive. I’m absolutely confident that we did the study as best we could. All events were adjudicated. Compliance was quite good at 60%. I can’t believe there is anything in our data that invalidates these results,” he said. “If we want to look at specific groups of patients then we have to do larger studies in those particular groups, but for a general population of hypertensive patients we didn’t find any difference at all in morning versus evening dosing.”

The TIME results are in direct contradiction of a previous high-profile study – the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial – published in 2020, which found a large protective effect of nocturnal dosing on cardiovascular events, and attracted much media attention. But this study has subsequently attracted criticism, with an “expression of concern” and a commentary raising several questions. 

And a systematic review from the International Society of Hypertension published earlier this month concludes that previous trials of bedtime antihypertensive dosing had “major flaws.”

The review notes that three ongoing, well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing.

“Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose,” it concludes.

On the new TIME results, lead author of the ISH review, George Stergiou, MD, commented: “The benefits of bedtime dosing were not confirmed – as we well expected. So, I think bedtime drug dosing should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice.”

Although the TIME trial did not show any harms with bedtime dose, Dr. Stergiou added, “I am not too happy with their conclusion that patients should do as they wish. The vast majority of well-conducted outcomes studies which we use to guide the treatment of hypertension administered all drugs in the morning.”

One of the authors of the commentary criticizing the Hygia trial, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, MD, University of Oslo, said in an interview that the TIME trial was an important study, far more reliable than the Hygia study, and the results were as expected.

“From a scientific point of view, patients have a choice as to when to take their medication, but we strongly recommend taking blood pressure meds in the morning. Adherence is proven to be worse at bedtime. However, physicians may still consider bedtime dosing in patients proven to have high night-time blood pressure,” Dr. Kjeldsen added.

Lead investigator of the Hygia study, Ramón C. Hermida, PhD, University of Vigo (Spain), told this news organization he and his coauthors are standing by their results.

“The design and conduct of the TIME trial does not comply with the quality requirements listed in the guidelines by the International Society for Chronobiology for conducting chronotherapy trials in hypertension, and the results are not in line with the reported findings of multiple clinical trials on the effects of timed hypertension treatment on blood pressure control and circadian pattern regulation, kidney function, and cardiac pathology,” Dr. Hermida said.

Chair of an ESC press conference on the TIME study, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark, said he thought the trial was “very well done.”

The TIME results, he said, “are quite clear, whether you take your blood pressure tablets in the morning or the evening it makes no difference for the hard outcomes that we fear in patients with hypertension.  

“I think that this solves a question that we’ve had for a long time now,” he commented. “Even though there were some changes in the blood pressure measured in the evening or in the morning it doesn’t seem to matter in terms of clinical events. This means that life might be a bit easier for patients in that they can choose when they take their medication at the time most convenient to them.  

“I don’t know why previous studies suggested such a big benefit of evening dosing,” he added. “I would say the TIME trial is a more definitive result. It is a very important trial.”

Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, agreed that the TIME study was well conducted.

“On the basis of these results I wouldn’t recommend a specific time,” she said. “That’s kind of a relief, as it can be difficult to always take medications at a set time and this gives patients more flexibility.”

She suggested a possible alternative approach for patients taking more than one drug – taking one in the morning and the other in the evening. “That might give better 24-hour coverage.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. MacDonald has reported receiving research funding from Novartis and consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca.

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

BARCELONA – Patients with hypertension who took their antihypertensive medication in the evening or in the morning had similar rates of cardiovascular events over the following 5 years, in the much-anticipated TIME trial.

The trial, which contradicts several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing may be better, was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. 

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

“The key message from this study is that taking antihypertensive medication in the evening makes no difference at all from taking it in the morning for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and vascular deaths,” concluded TIME lead investigator Tom MacDonald, MBChB, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology & pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee (Scotland).

The hazard ratio was 0.95 for the primary endpoint, a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or vascular death, in the intention-to-treat population.

Similar results, with a hazard ratio around 1, were seen for all the secondary outcomes and in all subgroups.

“There is nothing to see – not a smidge of a difference – in the primary outcome or any of the secondary outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald commented.

The study also showed that evening dosing was not harmful in terms of falls or other adverse effects. Dr. MacDonald explained that taking the medication at night could result in an increase in nocturnal hypotension that may translate into more dizziness and falls if patients get up to use the bathroom during the night. “But, if anything, there were more dizzy turns during the day. The rate of fractures and hospitalization for fractures were identical in the two groups,” he reported.

“Our take-home message is that patients can take their blood pressure tablets at any time they like – whenever is most convenient – as long as they take them. It’s probably best to get into a routine of taking your tablets at the same time every day. That way you are more likely to remember to take them – but it won’t matter if that is in the morning or in the evening,” he said. 

Non-dippers

Dr. MacDonald explained that the rationale for the study was that in some patients blood pressure does not drop at night, a group known as “non-dippers,” and nighttime blood pressure is the best predictor of bad outcomes. In addition, previous studies have suggested that evening dosing of antihypertensives reduces nighttime blood pressure more effectively than daytime dosing.

“We and others thought that giving medication in the evening so that its peak effect occurs during the night might be beneficial,” he said. “We did the trial because if it had turned out that taking tablets in the evening was beneficial, it would have been one of the cheapest and most cost-effective interventions known to man. It is a nice hypothesis and most people thought this would turn out with a benefit, but it actually didn’t.”

The study did find some differences in the blood pressure profile between the two dosing schedules.

“Our results show that when antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning, then blood pressure is higher in the morning and lower in the evening. With evening dosing, blood pressure is lower in the morning and higher in the evening. It’s not a huge difference – just 1-2 mm Hg – and this didn’t translate into any difference in outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald said. 

“Ideally we need medication that lowers blood pressure effectively over the whole 24-hour period. That is where the push should be,” he added.

The TIME study randomized 21,104 patients with treated hypertension to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or in the evening. Baseline characteristics show the average age of participants was 65 years, 14% had diabetes, 4% were smokers, 13% had prior cardiovascular disease, and mean blood pressure at entry was 135/79 mmHg.

TIME was a pragmatic study, with participants recruited from primary and secondary care registering on the Internet, and information on hospitalizations and deaths obtained from participants by email and through record linkage to national databases, with further data gathered from family doctors and hospitals and independently adjudicated by a blinded committee.

The median follow-up duration was 5.2 years, but some patients were followed for over 9 years.

The primary endpoint occurred in 362 (3.4%) participants in the evening-dosing group (0.69 events per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3.7%) in the morning-dosing group (0.72 events per 100 patient-years), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

What to recommend in clinical practice?

Outside commentators had mixed opinions on how the TIME results should be applied to clinical practice.

Discussant of the TIME study at the ESC Hotline session, Rhian Touyz, MBBCh, University of Glasgow (Scotland), said the trial asked a “very pertinent” question and the data “are certainly provocative.”

She cited several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing improved nighttime blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular events.

“The finding of no difference in event rate in the TIME study is therefore very intriguing.”

She pointed out that other studies have shown benefit of nighttime dosing in certain patient groups such as those with sleep apnea, non-dippers, and those with nocturnal hypertension.  

“With all these previous data, we have to ask why the TIME trial has produced this unexpected result,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald replied that the study was completely neutral. “That is the result, and I believe it is definitive. I’m absolutely confident that we did the study as best we could. All events were adjudicated. Compliance was quite good at 60%. I can’t believe there is anything in our data that invalidates these results,” he said. “If we want to look at specific groups of patients then we have to do larger studies in those particular groups, but for a general population of hypertensive patients we didn’t find any difference at all in morning versus evening dosing.”

The TIME results are in direct contradiction of a previous high-profile study – the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial – published in 2020, which found a large protective effect of nocturnal dosing on cardiovascular events, and attracted much media attention. But this study has subsequently attracted criticism, with an “expression of concern” and a commentary raising several questions. 

And a systematic review from the International Society of Hypertension published earlier this month concludes that previous trials of bedtime antihypertensive dosing had “major flaws.”

The review notes that three ongoing, well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing.

“Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose,” it concludes.

On the new TIME results, lead author of the ISH review, George Stergiou, MD, commented: “The benefits of bedtime dosing were not confirmed – as we well expected. So, I think bedtime drug dosing should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice.”

Although the TIME trial did not show any harms with bedtime dose, Dr. Stergiou added, “I am not too happy with their conclusion that patients should do as they wish. The vast majority of well-conducted outcomes studies which we use to guide the treatment of hypertension administered all drugs in the morning.”

One of the authors of the commentary criticizing the Hygia trial, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, MD, University of Oslo, said in an interview that the TIME trial was an important study, far more reliable than the Hygia study, and the results were as expected.

“From a scientific point of view, patients have a choice as to when to take their medication, but we strongly recommend taking blood pressure meds in the morning. Adherence is proven to be worse at bedtime. However, physicians may still consider bedtime dosing in patients proven to have high night-time blood pressure,” Dr. Kjeldsen added.

Lead investigator of the Hygia study, Ramón C. Hermida, PhD, University of Vigo (Spain), told this news organization he and his coauthors are standing by their results.

“The design and conduct of the TIME trial does not comply with the quality requirements listed in the guidelines by the International Society for Chronobiology for conducting chronotherapy trials in hypertension, and the results are not in line with the reported findings of multiple clinical trials on the effects of timed hypertension treatment on blood pressure control and circadian pattern regulation, kidney function, and cardiac pathology,” Dr. Hermida said.

Chair of an ESC press conference on the TIME study, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark, said he thought the trial was “very well done.”

The TIME results, he said, “are quite clear, whether you take your blood pressure tablets in the morning or the evening it makes no difference for the hard outcomes that we fear in patients with hypertension.  

“I think that this solves a question that we’ve had for a long time now,” he commented. “Even though there were some changes in the blood pressure measured in the evening or in the morning it doesn’t seem to matter in terms of clinical events. This means that life might be a bit easier for patients in that they can choose when they take their medication at the time most convenient to them.  

“I don’t know why previous studies suggested such a big benefit of evening dosing,” he added. “I would say the TIME trial is a more definitive result. It is a very important trial.”

Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, agreed that the TIME study was well conducted.

“On the basis of these results I wouldn’t recommend a specific time,” she said. “That’s kind of a relief, as it can be difficult to always take medications at a set time and this gives patients more flexibility.”

She suggested a possible alternative approach for patients taking more than one drug – taking one in the morning and the other in the evening. “That might give better 24-hour coverage.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. MacDonald has reported receiving research funding from Novartis and consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca.

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

BARCELONA – Patients with hypertension who took their antihypertensive medication in the evening or in the morning had similar rates of cardiovascular events over the following 5 years, in the much-anticipated TIME trial.

The trial, which contradicts several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing may be better, was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. 

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

“The key message from this study is that taking antihypertensive medication in the evening makes no difference at all from taking it in the morning for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and vascular deaths,” concluded TIME lead investigator Tom MacDonald, MBChB, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology & pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee (Scotland).

The hazard ratio was 0.95 for the primary endpoint, a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or vascular death, in the intention-to-treat population.

Similar results, with a hazard ratio around 1, were seen for all the secondary outcomes and in all subgroups.

“There is nothing to see – not a smidge of a difference – in the primary outcome or any of the secondary outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald commented.

The study also showed that evening dosing was not harmful in terms of falls or other adverse effects. Dr. MacDonald explained that taking the medication at night could result in an increase in nocturnal hypotension that may translate into more dizziness and falls if patients get up to use the bathroom during the night. “But, if anything, there were more dizzy turns during the day. The rate of fractures and hospitalization for fractures were identical in the two groups,” he reported.

“Our take-home message is that patients can take their blood pressure tablets at any time they like – whenever is most convenient – as long as they take them. It’s probably best to get into a routine of taking your tablets at the same time every day. That way you are more likely to remember to take them – but it won’t matter if that is in the morning or in the evening,” he said. 

Non-dippers

Dr. MacDonald explained that the rationale for the study was that in some patients blood pressure does not drop at night, a group known as “non-dippers,” and nighttime blood pressure is the best predictor of bad outcomes. In addition, previous studies have suggested that evening dosing of antihypertensives reduces nighttime blood pressure more effectively than daytime dosing.

“We and others thought that giving medication in the evening so that its peak effect occurs during the night might be beneficial,” he said. “We did the trial because if it had turned out that taking tablets in the evening was beneficial, it would have been one of the cheapest and most cost-effective interventions known to man. It is a nice hypothesis and most people thought this would turn out with a benefit, but it actually didn’t.”

The study did find some differences in the blood pressure profile between the two dosing schedules.

“Our results show that when antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning, then blood pressure is higher in the morning and lower in the evening. With evening dosing, blood pressure is lower in the morning and higher in the evening. It’s not a huge difference – just 1-2 mm Hg – and this didn’t translate into any difference in outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald said. 

“Ideally we need medication that lowers blood pressure effectively over the whole 24-hour period. That is where the push should be,” he added.

The TIME study randomized 21,104 patients with treated hypertension to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or in the evening. Baseline characteristics show the average age of participants was 65 years, 14% had diabetes, 4% were smokers, 13% had prior cardiovascular disease, and mean blood pressure at entry was 135/79 mmHg.

TIME was a pragmatic study, with participants recruited from primary and secondary care registering on the Internet, and information on hospitalizations and deaths obtained from participants by email and through record linkage to national databases, with further data gathered from family doctors and hospitals and independently adjudicated by a blinded committee.

The median follow-up duration was 5.2 years, but some patients were followed for over 9 years.

The primary endpoint occurred in 362 (3.4%) participants in the evening-dosing group (0.69 events per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3.7%) in the morning-dosing group (0.72 events per 100 patient-years), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

What to recommend in clinical practice?

Outside commentators had mixed opinions on how the TIME results should be applied to clinical practice.

Discussant of the TIME study at the ESC Hotline session, Rhian Touyz, MBBCh, University of Glasgow (Scotland), said the trial asked a “very pertinent” question and the data “are certainly provocative.”

She cited several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing improved nighttime blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular events.

“The finding of no difference in event rate in the TIME study is therefore very intriguing.”

She pointed out that other studies have shown benefit of nighttime dosing in certain patient groups such as those with sleep apnea, non-dippers, and those with nocturnal hypertension.  

“With all these previous data, we have to ask why the TIME trial has produced this unexpected result,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald replied that the study was completely neutral. “That is the result, and I believe it is definitive. I’m absolutely confident that we did the study as best we could. All events were adjudicated. Compliance was quite good at 60%. I can’t believe there is anything in our data that invalidates these results,” he said. “If we want to look at specific groups of patients then we have to do larger studies in those particular groups, but for a general population of hypertensive patients we didn’t find any difference at all in morning versus evening dosing.”

The TIME results are in direct contradiction of a previous high-profile study – the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial – published in 2020, which found a large protective effect of nocturnal dosing on cardiovascular events, and attracted much media attention. But this study has subsequently attracted criticism, with an “expression of concern” and a commentary raising several questions. 

And a systematic review from the International Society of Hypertension published earlier this month concludes that previous trials of bedtime antihypertensive dosing had “major flaws.”

The review notes that three ongoing, well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing.

“Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose,” it concludes.

On the new TIME results, lead author of the ISH review, George Stergiou, MD, commented: “The benefits of bedtime dosing were not confirmed – as we well expected. So, I think bedtime drug dosing should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice.”

Although the TIME trial did not show any harms with bedtime dose, Dr. Stergiou added, “I am not too happy with their conclusion that patients should do as they wish. The vast majority of well-conducted outcomes studies which we use to guide the treatment of hypertension administered all drugs in the morning.”

One of the authors of the commentary criticizing the Hygia trial, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, MD, University of Oslo, said in an interview that the TIME trial was an important study, far more reliable than the Hygia study, and the results were as expected.

“From a scientific point of view, patients have a choice as to when to take their medication, but we strongly recommend taking blood pressure meds in the morning. Adherence is proven to be worse at bedtime. However, physicians may still consider bedtime dosing in patients proven to have high night-time blood pressure,” Dr. Kjeldsen added.

Lead investigator of the Hygia study, Ramón C. Hermida, PhD, University of Vigo (Spain), told this news organization he and his coauthors are standing by their results.

“The design and conduct of the TIME trial does not comply with the quality requirements listed in the guidelines by the International Society for Chronobiology for conducting chronotherapy trials in hypertension, and the results are not in line with the reported findings of multiple clinical trials on the effects of timed hypertension treatment on blood pressure control and circadian pattern regulation, kidney function, and cardiac pathology,” Dr. Hermida said.

Chair of an ESC press conference on the TIME study, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark, said he thought the trial was “very well done.”

The TIME results, he said, “are quite clear, whether you take your blood pressure tablets in the morning or the evening it makes no difference for the hard outcomes that we fear in patients with hypertension.  

“I think that this solves a question that we’ve had for a long time now,” he commented. “Even though there were some changes in the blood pressure measured in the evening or in the morning it doesn’t seem to matter in terms of clinical events. This means that life might be a bit easier for patients in that they can choose when they take their medication at the time most convenient to them.  

“I don’t know why previous studies suggested such a big benefit of evening dosing,” he added. “I would say the TIME trial is a more definitive result. It is a very important trial.”

Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, agreed that the TIME study was well conducted.

“On the basis of these results I wouldn’t recommend a specific time,” she said. “That’s kind of a relief, as it can be difficult to always take medications at a set time and this gives patients more flexibility.”

She suggested a possible alternative approach for patients taking more than one drug – taking one in the morning and the other in the evening. “That might give better 24-hour coverage.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. MacDonald has reported receiving research funding from Novartis and consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca.

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

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

The wife of a Northern California congressman died late in 2021 after ingesting a plant that is generally considered safe and is used as an herbal remedy for a variety of ailments, including diabetes, obesity, and high cholesterol.

Lori McClintock, the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, died from dehydration due to gastroenteritis – an inflammation of the stomach and intestines – that was caused by “adverse effects of white mulberry leaf ingestion,” according to a report from the Sacramento County coroner that is dated March 10 but was not immediately released to the public. KHN obtained that report – in addition to the autopsy report and an amended death certificate containing an updated cause of death – in July.

The coroner’s office ruled her death an accident. The original death certificate, dated Dec. 20, 2021, listed the cause of death as “pending.”

Tom McClintock, a Republican who represents a district that spans multiple counties in northern and central California, found his 61-year-old wife unresponsive at their Elk Grove, Calif., home on Dec. 15, 2021, according to the coroner’s report. He had just returned from Washington after voting in Congress the night before.

It’s unclear from the autopsy report whether Lori McClintock took a dietary supplement containing white mulberry leaf, ate fresh or dried leaves, or drank them in a tea, but a “partially intact” white mulberry leaf was found in her stomach, according to the report.

Ms. McClintock’s death underscores the risks of the vast, booming market of dietary supplements and herbal remedies, which have grown into a $54 billion industry in the United States – one that both lawmakers and health care experts say needs more government scrutiny.

“Many people assume if that product is sold in the United States of America, somebody has inspected it, and it must be safe. Unfortunately, that’s not always true,” U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor this spring when he introduced legislation to strengthen oversight of dietary supplements.

Daniel Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, which represents the dietary supplements industry, questioned whether Ms. McClintock’s death was related to a supplement.

“It’s completely speculative. There’s a science to this. It’s not just what a coroner feels,” said Mr. Fabricant, who oversaw dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration during the Obama administration. “People unfortunately pass from dehydration every day, and there’s a lot of different reasons and a lot of different causes.”

Mr. Fabricant said it would have been ideal had the coroner or the family reported her death to the FDA so the agency could have launched an investigation.

Such reports are voluntary, and it’s not clear whether anyone reported her death to the agency. FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes said the agency does not discuss possible or ongoing investigations.

The FDA, Mr. Fabricant added, has a system in place to investigate deaths that might be linked to a supplement or drug. “It’s casework,” he said. “It’s good, old-fashioned police work that needs to be done.”

Tom McClintock has remained mostly silent about his wife’s death since he released a statement on Dec. 19, 2021, announcing it and gave a tribute to her at her Jan. 4 funeral. Until now, the cause of death had not been reported.

Mr. McClintock, contacted multiple times by phone and email Wednesday, was not immediately available for comment.

At his wife’s funeral, McClintock told mourners that she was fine when he spoke with her the day before he returned. She had told a friend that “she was on a roll” at a new job she loved in a Sacramento real estate office, he said, and “she was carefully dieting.”

“She just joined a gym,” he said. “At home, she was counting down the days to Christmas, wrapping all the gifts and making all the plans to make it the best family Christmas ever, and it would have been.”

According to the coroner’s report, however, the day before her death, “she had complaints of an upset stomach.”

Sacramento County spokesperson Kim Nava said via email Wednesday that the law prohibits the coroner’s office from discussing many details of specific cases. As part of any death investigation, the office “attempts to locate and review medical records and speak to family/witnesses to establish events leading up to and surrounding a death,” she said.

If any medications or supplements are found at the scene or if pertinent information is in the person’s medical records, those are passed along to the pathologist to help establish cause of death, Ms. Nava said.

“Any information the office obtains from medical records can’t be disseminated to a third party except by court order,” she said.

The leaves and fruit of the white mulberry tree, which is native to China, have been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Academic studies over the past decade have found that the extract from its leaves can lower blood sugar levels and help with weight loss. People take it in capsule or pill form, as an extract or powder. They can also brew the leaves as an herbal tea.

Lori McClintock’s reaction seems unusual. No deaths from the white mulberry plant have been reported to poison control officials in the past 10 years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Since 2012, 148 cases of white mulberry plant ingestion were voluntarily reported to poison control officials nationally, most involving accidental ingestion by children 12 and under, said Kaitlyn Brown, clinical managing director for the association. Only one case required medical follow-up, she said.

While poison control centers track exposures to the white mulberry plant, the FDA oversees dietary supplements, such as products that contain white mulberry leaf extract. Since 2004, two cases of people sickened by mulberry supplements have been reported to the FDA, according to its database that tracks “adverse events.” It relies heavily on voluntary reports from health care professionals and consumers. At least one of those cases led to hospitalization.

White mulberry leaf can have side effects, including nausea and diarrhea, according to research. Independent lab tests ordered by the coroner’s office showed Ms. McClintock’s body had elevated levels of nitrogen, sodium, and creatinine – all signs of dehydration, according to three pathologists who reviewed the coroner’s documents, which KHN redacted to remove Ms. McClintock’s name.

White mulberry leaves “do tend to cause dehydration, and part of the uses for that can be to help someone lose weight, mostly through fluid loss, which in this case was just kind of excessive,” said D’Michelle DuPre, MD, a retired forensic pathologist and a former medical examiner in South Carolina who reviewed the documents.

Dietary supplements, which include a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are regulated by the FDA. However, they are classified as food and don’t undergo the rigorous scientific and safety testing the government requires of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines.

Lawmakers aren’t proposing to put supplements into the same category as pharmaceuticals, but some say they are alarmed that neither the FDA nor the industry knows how many dietary supplements are out there – making it almost impossible for the government to oversee them and punish bad actors.

The FDA estimates 40,000 to 80,000 supplement products are on the market in the United States, and industry surveys estimate 80% of Americans use them.

Legislation by Sen. Durbin and U.S. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) would require manufacturers to register with the FDA and provide a public list of ingredients in their products, two provisions that are backed by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, another industry group that represents supplement makers.

But the council is lobbying against a provision that would require supplement makers to provide consumers with the ingredient amounts – or the blend – in their products, something they say is akin to giving a recipe to competitors. That’s proprietary information only government regulators should have access to, said Megan Olsen, the group’s senior vice president and general counsel.

Ms. Olsen explained that supplement manufacturers are regulated just like other food companies and are subject to strict labeling requirements and inspections by the FDA. They also must inform the agency about any adverse effects reported by consumers or doctors.

“Companies are testing products throughout the process, are reviewing how they’re being manufactured and what’s going into them,” Ms. Olsen said. “All of that is overseen and dictated by FDA regulation.”

The dietary supplement provisions were rolled into a larger Senate health committee bill that reauthorizes FDA programs, and senators are currently in negotiations with the House of Representatives. The Natural Products Association opposes all of the dietary supplement provisions.

Because dietary pills, teas, and other supplements are regulated as food products, manufacturers can’t advertise them as treatments or cures for health issues. But they can make claims about how the supplements affect the body. So someone who wants to lose weight or get their diabetes under control might reach for a bottle of white mulberry leaf extract because some supplement makers advertise it as a natural remedy that can lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.

Those kinds of claims are appealing to Americans and have been especially potent during the pandemic, as people sought to boost their immune systems and fend off COVID-19, said Debbie Petitpain, a registered dietitian nutritionist and a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

But dietary supplements can be dangerous and don’t affect everyone the same way. Mixing supplements and prescription medicines can compound the problem, according to the FDA.

“I think a lot of people are thinking, ‘Oh, it’s a plant.’ Or, ‘Oh, it’s just a vitamin. Certainly, that means that it’s not going to hurt me,’ ” Ms. Petitpain said. “But there’s always a risk for taking anything.”

It’s not clear why Lori McClintock was taking white mulberry leaf. Friends and family who gathered for her funeral described a vibrant, happy woman who loved her family and her work and already had wrapped Christmas presents under the tree in mid-December. She was planning to buy a recreational vehicle with her husband in retirement.

“We grieve the loss because of all the things she was looking forward to doing and all the years yet ahead,” Tom McClintock told mourners. “And we grieve for something else, because we’ve all lost a genuinely good person in our lives.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The wife of a Northern California congressman died late in 2021 after ingesting a plant that is generally considered safe and is used as an herbal remedy for a variety of ailments, including diabetes, obesity, and high cholesterol.

Lori McClintock, the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, died from dehydration due to gastroenteritis – an inflammation of the stomach and intestines – that was caused by “adverse effects of white mulberry leaf ingestion,” according to a report from the Sacramento County coroner that is dated March 10 but was not immediately released to the public. KHN obtained that report – in addition to the autopsy report and an amended death certificate containing an updated cause of death – in July.

The coroner’s office ruled her death an accident. The original death certificate, dated Dec. 20, 2021, listed the cause of death as “pending.”

Tom McClintock, a Republican who represents a district that spans multiple counties in northern and central California, found his 61-year-old wife unresponsive at their Elk Grove, Calif., home on Dec. 15, 2021, according to the coroner’s report. He had just returned from Washington after voting in Congress the night before.

It’s unclear from the autopsy report whether Lori McClintock took a dietary supplement containing white mulberry leaf, ate fresh or dried leaves, or drank them in a tea, but a “partially intact” white mulberry leaf was found in her stomach, according to the report.

Ms. McClintock’s death underscores the risks of the vast, booming market of dietary supplements and herbal remedies, which have grown into a $54 billion industry in the United States – one that both lawmakers and health care experts say needs more government scrutiny.

“Many people assume if that product is sold in the United States of America, somebody has inspected it, and it must be safe. Unfortunately, that’s not always true,” U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor this spring when he introduced legislation to strengthen oversight of dietary supplements.

Daniel Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, which represents the dietary supplements industry, questioned whether Ms. McClintock’s death was related to a supplement.

“It’s completely speculative. There’s a science to this. It’s not just what a coroner feels,” said Mr. Fabricant, who oversaw dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration during the Obama administration. “People unfortunately pass from dehydration every day, and there’s a lot of different reasons and a lot of different causes.”

Mr. Fabricant said it would have been ideal had the coroner or the family reported her death to the FDA so the agency could have launched an investigation.

Such reports are voluntary, and it’s not clear whether anyone reported her death to the agency. FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes said the agency does not discuss possible or ongoing investigations.

The FDA, Mr. Fabricant added, has a system in place to investigate deaths that might be linked to a supplement or drug. “It’s casework,” he said. “It’s good, old-fashioned police work that needs to be done.”

Tom McClintock has remained mostly silent about his wife’s death since he released a statement on Dec. 19, 2021, announcing it and gave a tribute to her at her Jan. 4 funeral. Until now, the cause of death had not been reported.

Mr. McClintock, contacted multiple times by phone and email Wednesday, was not immediately available for comment.

At his wife’s funeral, McClintock told mourners that she was fine when he spoke with her the day before he returned. She had told a friend that “she was on a roll” at a new job she loved in a Sacramento real estate office, he said, and “she was carefully dieting.”

“She just joined a gym,” he said. “At home, she was counting down the days to Christmas, wrapping all the gifts and making all the plans to make it the best family Christmas ever, and it would have been.”

According to the coroner’s report, however, the day before her death, “she had complaints of an upset stomach.”

Sacramento County spokesperson Kim Nava said via email Wednesday that the law prohibits the coroner’s office from discussing many details of specific cases. As part of any death investigation, the office “attempts to locate and review medical records and speak to family/witnesses to establish events leading up to and surrounding a death,” she said.

If any medications or supplements are found at the scene or if pertinent information is in the person’s medical records, those are passed along to the pathologist to help establish cause of death, Ms. Nava said.

“Any information the office obtains from medical records can’t be disseminated to a third party except by court order,” she said.

The leaves and fruit of the white mulberry tree, which is native to China, have been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Academic studies over the past decade have found that the extract from its leaves can lower blood sugar levels and help with weight loss. People take it in capsule or pill form, as an extract or powder. They can also brew the leaves as an herbal tea.

Lori McClintock’s reaction seems unusual. No deaths from the white mulberry plant have been reported to poison control officials in the past 10 years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Since 2012, 148 cases of white mulberry plant ingestion were voluntarily reported to poison control officials nationally, most involving accidental ingestion by children 12 and under, said Kaitlyn Brown, clinical managing director for the association. Only one case required medical follow-up, she said.

While poison control centers track exposures to the white mulberry plant, the FDA oversees dietary supplements, such as products that contain white mulberry leaf extract. Since 2004, two cases of people sickened by mulberry supplements have been reported to the FDA, according to its database that tracks “adverse events.” It relies heavily on voluntary reports from health care professionals and consumers. At least one of those cases led to hospitalization.

White mulberry leaf can have side effects, including nausea and diarrhea, according to research. Independent lab tests ordered by the coroner’s office showed Ms. McClintock’s body had elevated levels of nitrogen, sodium, and creatinine – all signs of dehydration, according to three pathologists who reviewed the coroner’s documents, which KHN redacted to remove Ms. McClintock’s name.

White mulberry leaves “do tend to cause dehydration, and part of the uses for that can be to help someone lose weight, mostly through fluid loss, which in this case was just kind of excessive,” said D’Michelle DuPre, MD, a retired forensic pathologist and a former medical examiner in South Carolina who reviewed the documents.

Dietary supplements, which include a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are regulated by the FDA. However, they are classified as food and don’t undergo the rigorous scientific and safety testing the government requires of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines.

Lawmakers aren’t proposing to put supplements into the same category as pharmaceuticals, but some say they are alarmed that neither the FDA nor the industry knows how many dietary supplements are out there – making it almost impossible for the government to oversee them and punish bad actors.

The FDA estimates 40,000 to 80,000 supplement products are on the market in the United States, and industry surveys estimate 80% of Americans use them.

Legislation by Sen. Durbin and U.S. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) would require manufacturers to register with the FDA and provide a public list of ingredients in their products, two provisions that are backed by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, another industry group that represents supplement makers.

But the council is lobbying against a provision that would require supplement makers to provide consumers with the ingredient amounts – or the blend – in their products, something they say is akin to giving a recipe to competitors. That’s proprietary information only government regulators should have access to, said Megan Olsen, the group’s senior vice president and general counsel.

Ms. Olsen explained that supplement manufacturers are regulated just like other food companies and are subject to strict labeling requirements and inspections by the FDA. They also must inform the agency about any adverse effects reported by consumers or doctors.

“Companies are testing products throughout the process, are reviewing how they’re being manufactured and what’s going into them,” Ms. Olsen said. “All of that is overseen and dictated by FDA regulation.”

The dietary supplement provisions were rolled into a larger Senate health committee bill that reauthorizes FDA programs, and senators are currently in negotiations with the House of Representatives. The Natural Products Association opposes all of the dietary supplement provisions.

Because dietary pills, teas, and other supplements are regulated as food products, manufacturers can’t advertise them as treatments or cures for health issues. But they can make claims about how the supplements affect the body. So someone who wants to lose weight or get their diabetes under control might reach for a bottle of white mulberry leaf extract because some supplement makers advertise it as a natural remedy that can lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.

Those kinds of claims are appealing to Americans and have been especially potent during the pandemic, as people sought to boost their immune systems and fend off COVID-19, said Debbie Petitpain, a registered dietitian nutritionist and a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

But dietary supplements can be dangerous and don’t affect everyone the same way. Mixing supplements and prescription medicines can compound the problem, according to the FDA.

“I think a lot of people are thinking, ‘Oh, it’s a plant.’ Or, ‘Oh, it’s just a vitamin. Certainly, that means that it’s not going to hurt me,’ ” Ms. Petitpain said. “But there’s always a risk for taking anything.”

It’s not clear why Lori McClintock was taking white mulberry leaf. Friends and family who gathered for her funeral described a vibrant, happy woman who loved her family and her work and already had wrapped Christmas presents under the tree in mid-December. She was planning to buy a recreational vehicle with her husband in retirement.

“We grieve the loss because of all the things she was looking forward to doing and all the years yet ahead,” Tom McClintock told mourners. “And we grieve for something else, because we’ve all lost a genuinely good person in our lives.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The wife of a Northern California congressman died late in 2021 after ingesting a plant that is generally considered safe and is used as an herbal remedy for a variety of ailments, including diabetes, obesity, and high cholesterol.

Lori McClintock, the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, died from dehydration due to gastroenteritis – an inflammation of the stomach and intestines – that was caused by “adverse effects of white mulberry leaf ingestion,” according to a report from the Sacramento County coroner that is dated March 10 but was not immediately released to the public. KHN obtained that report – in addition to the autopsy report and an amended death certificate containing an updated cause of death – in July.

The coroner’s office ruled her death an accident. The original death certificate, dated Dec. 20, 2021, listed the cause of death as “pending.”

Tom McClintock, a Republican who represents a district that spans multiple counties in northern and central California, found his 61-year-old wife unresponsive at their Elk Grove, Calif., home on Dec. 15, 2021, according to the coroner’s report. He had just returned from Washington after voting in Congress the night before.

It’s unclear from the autopsy report whether Lori McClintock took a dietary supplement containing white mulberry leaf, ate fresh or dried leaves, or drank them in a tea, but a “partially intact” white mulberry leaf was found in her stomach, according to the report.

Ms. McClintock’s death underscores the risks of the vast, booming market of dietary supplements and herbal remedies, which have grown into a $54 billion industry in the United States – one that both lawmakers and health care experts say needs more government scrutiny.

“Many people assume if that product is sold in the United States of America, somebody has inspected it, and it must be safe. Unfortunately, that’s not always true,” U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor this spring when he introduced legislation to strengthen oversight of dietary supplements.

Daniel Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, which represents the dietary supplements industry, questioned whether Ms. McClintock’s death was related to a supplement.

“It’s completely speculative. There’s a science to this. It’s not just what a coroner feels,” said Mr. Fabricant, who oversaw dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration during the Obama administration. “People unfortunately pass from dehydration every day, and there’s a lot of different reasons and a lot of different causes.”

Mr. Fabricant said it would have been ideal had the coroner or the family reported her death to the FDA so the agency could have launched an investigation.

Such reports are voluntary, and it’s not clear whether anyone reported her death to the agency. FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes said the agency does not discuss possible or ongoing investigations.

The FDA, Mr. Fabricant added, has a system in place to investigate deaths that might be linked to a supplement or drug. “It’s casework,” he said. “It’s good, old-fashioned police work that needs to be done.”

Tom McClintock has remained mostly silent about his wife’s death since he released a statement on Dec. 19, 2021, announcing it and gave a tribute to her at her Jan. 4 funeral. Until now, the cause of death had not been reported.

Mr. McClintock, contacted multiple times by phone and email Wednesday, was not immediately available for comment.

At his wife’s funeral, McClintock told mourners that she was fine when he spoke with her the day before he returned. She had told a friend that “she was on a roll” at a new job she loved in a Sacramento real estate office, he said, and “she was carefully dieting.”

“She just joined a gym,” he said. “At home, she was counting down the days to Christmas, wrapping all the gifts and making all the plans to make it the best family Christmas ever, and it would have been.”

According to the coroner’s report, however, the day before her death, “she had complaints of an upset stomach.”

Sacramento County spokesperson Kim Nava said via email Wednesday that the law prohibits the coroner’s office from discussing many details of specific cases. As part of any death investigation, the office “attempts to locate and review medical records and speak to family/witnesses to establish events leading up to and surrounding a death,” she said.

If any medications or supplements are found at the scene or if pertinent information is in the person’s medical records, those are passed along to the pathologist to help establish cause of death, Ms. Nava said.

“Any information the office obtains from medical records can’t be disseminated to a third party except by court order,” she said.

The leaves and fruit of the white mulberry tree, which is native to China, have been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Academic studies over the past decade have found that the extract from its leaves can lower blood sugar levels and help with weight loss. People take it in capsule or pill form, as an extract or powder. They can also brew the leaves as an herbal tea.

Lori McClintock’s reaction seems unusual. No deaths from the white mulberry plant have been reported to poison control officials in the past 10 years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Since 2012, 148 cases of white mulberry plant ingestion were voluntarily reported to poison control officials nationally, most involving accidental ingestion by children 12 and under, said Kaitlyn Brown, clinical managing director for the association. Only one case required medical follow-up, she said.

While poison control centers track exposures to the white mulberry plant, the FDA oversees dietary supplements, such as products that contain white mulberry leaf extract. Since 2004, two cases of people sickened by mulberry supplements have been reported to the FDA, according to its database that tracks “adverse events.” It relies heavily on voluntary reports from health care professionals and consumers. At least one of those cases led to hospitalization.

White mulberry leaf can have side effects, including nausea and diarrhea, according to research. Independent lab tests ordered by the coroner’s office showed Ms. McClintock’s body had elevated levels of nitrogen, sodium, and creatinine – all signs of dehydration, according to three pathologists who reviewed the coroner’s documents, which KHN redacted to remove Ms. McClintock’s name.

White mulberry leaves “do tend to cause dehydration, and part of the uses for that can be to help someone lose weight, mostly through fluid loss, which in this case was just kind of excessive,” said D’Michelle DuPre, MD, a retired forensic pathologist and a former medical examiner in South Carolina who reviewed the documents.

Dietary supplements, which include a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are regulated by the FDA. However, they are classified as food and don’t undergo the rigorous scientific and safety testing the government requires of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines.

Lawmakers aren’t proposing to put supplements into the same category as pharmaceuticals, but some say they are alarmed that neither the FDA nor the industry knows how many dietary supplements are out there – making it almost impossible for the government to oversee them and punish bad actors.

The FDA estimates 40,000 to 80,000 supplement products are on the market in the United States, and industry surveys estimate 80% of Americans use them.

Legislation by Sen. Durbin and U.S. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) would require manufacturers to register with the FDA and provide a public list of ingredients in their products, two provisions that are backed by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, another industry group that represents supplement makers.

But the council is lobbying against a provision that would require supplement makers to provide consumers with the ingredient amounts – or the blend – in their products, something they say is akin to giving a recipe to competitors. That’s proprietary information only government regulators should have access to, said Megan Olsen, the group’s senior vice president and general counsel.

Ms. Olsen explained that supplement manufacturers are regulated just like other food companies and are subject to strict labeling requirements and inspections by the FDA. They also must inform the agency about any adverse effects reported by consumers or doctors.

“Companies are testing products throughout the process, are reviewing how they’re being manufactured and what’s going into them,” Ms. Olsen said. “All of that is overseen and dictated by FDA regulation.”

The dietary supplement provisions were rolled into a larger Senate health committee bill that reauthorizes FDA programs, and senators are currently in negotiations with the House of Representatives. The Natural Products Association opposes all of the dietary supplement provisions.

Because dietary pills, teas, and other supplements are regulated as food products, manufacturers can’t advertise them as treatments or cures for health issues. But they can make claims about how the supplements affect the body. So someone who wants to lose weight or get their diabetes under control might reach for a bottle of white mulberry leaf extract because some supplement makers advertise it as a natural remedy that can lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.

Those kinds of claims are appealing to Americans and have been especially potent during the pandemic, as people sought to boost their immune systems and fend off COVID-19, said Debbie Petitpain, a registered dietitian nutritionist and a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

But dietary supplements can be dangerous and don’t affect everyone the same way. Mixing supplements and prescription medicines can compound the problem, according to the FDA.

“I think a lot of people are thinking, ‘Oh, it’s a plant.’ Or, ‘Oh, it’s just a vitamin. Certainly, that means that it’s not going to hurt me,’ ” Ms. Petitpain said. “But there’s always a risk for taking anything.”

It’s not clear why Lori McClintock was taking white mulberry leaf. Friends and family who gathered for her funeral described a vibrant, happy woman who loved her family and her work and already had wrapped Christmas presents under the tree in mid-December. She was planning to buy a recreational vehicle with her husband in retirement.

“We grieve the loss because of all the things she was looking forward to doing and all the years yet ahead,” Tom McClintock told mourners. “And we grieve for something else, because we’ve all lost a genuinely good person in our lives.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SEOUL, South Korea – Menopause before age 40 is associated with elevated risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, according to a study published in European Heart Journal, from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The study of more than 1.4 million women revealed that the younger the age at menopause, the higher the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

“Women with premature menopause should be aware that they may be more likely to develop heart failure or atrial fibrillation than their peers,” said study author Ga Eun Nam, MD, PhD, of Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. “This may be good motivation to improve lifestyle habits known to be linked with heart disease, such as quitting smoking and exercising.”

Cardiovascular disease typically occurs up to 10 years later in women than men. Premenopausal women are thought to benefit from estrogen’s protective effect on the cardiovascular system. The cessation of menstruation and subsequent decline of estrogen levels may make women more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.
 

A national population

Premature menopause affects 1% of women younger than 40 years, the ESC press release stated. Prior studies have found a link between premature (before age 40 years) and early (before age 45 years) menopause and cardiovascular disease overall, but the evidence for heart failure or atrial fibrillation alone is limited. This study examined the associations between premature menopause, age at menopause, and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS), which provides health screening at least every 2 years and includes 97% of the population.

The study included 1,401,175 postmenopausal women aged 30 years and older who completed the NHIS health checkup in 2009. Participants were monitored until the end of 2018 for new-onset heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Information was collected on demographics, health behaviors, and reproductive factors, including age at menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Age at menopause was split into four categories: younger than 40 years, 40-44 years, 45-49 years, and 50 years or older. Premature menopause was defined as having the final menstrual period before age 40 years.

Some 28,111 (2%) participants had a history of premature menopause. For these women, the average age at menopause was 36.7 years. The average age at study enrollment for women with and for those without a history of premature menopause was 60 and 61.5 years, respectively. During an average follow-up of 9.1 years, 42,699 (3.0%) developed heart failure, and 44,834 (3.2%) developed atrial fibrillation.

The researchers analyzed the association between history of premature menopause and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, income, body mass index, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, HRT, and age at menarche. Women who experienced premature menopause had a 33% higher risk for heart failure and 9% higher risk for atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not.
 

Reproductive history

The researchers then analyzed the associations between age at menopause and incidence of heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for the same factors as in the previous analyses. The risk for incident heart failure increased as the age at menopause decreased. Compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause, those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause had 11%, 23%, and 39% greater risk for incident heart failure, respectively. Similarly, the risk for incident atrial fibrillation increased as the age at menopause decreased; the risk was 4%, 10%, and 11% higher for those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause, respectively, compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause.

The authors said that several factors may explain the associations between menopausal age, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, such as the drop in estrogen levels and changes in body fat distribution.

Dr. Nam concluded, “The misconception that heart disease primarily affects men has meant that sex-specific risk factors have been largely ignored. Evidence is growing that undergoing menopause before the age of 40 years may increase the likelihood of heart disease later in life. Our study indicates that reproductive history should be routinely considered in addition to traditional risk factors such as smoking when evaluating the future likelihood of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

SEOUL, South Korea – Menopause before age 40 is associated with elevated risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, according to a study published in European Heart Journal, from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The study of more than 1.4 million women revealed that the younger the age at menopause, the higher the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

“Women with premature menopause should be aware that they may be more likely to develop heart failure or atrial fibrillation than their peers,” said study author Ga Eun Nam, MD, PhD, of Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. “This may be good motivation to improve lifestyle habits known to be linked with heart disease, such as quitting smoking and exercising.”

Cardiovascular disease typically occurs up to 10 years later in women than men. Premenopausal women are thought to benefit from estrogen’s protective effect on the cardiovascular system. The cessation of menstruation and subsequent decline of estrogen levels may make women more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.
 

A national population

Premature menopause affects 1% of women younger than 40 years, the ESC press release stated. Prior studies have found a link between premature (before age 40 years) and early (before age 45 years) menopause and cardiovascular disease overall, but the evidence for heart failure or atrial fibrillation alone is limited. This study examined the associations between premature menopause, age at menopause, and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS), which provides health screening at least every 2 years and includes 97% of the population.

The study included 1,401,175 postmenopausal women aged 30 years and older who completed the NHIS health checkup in 2009. Participants were monitored until the end of 2018 for new-onset heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Information was collected on demographics, health behaviors, and reproductive factors, including age at menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Age at menopause was split into four categories: younger than 40 years, 40-44 years, 45-49 years, and 50 years or older. Premature menopause was defined as having the final menstrual period before age 40 years.

Some 28,111 (2%) participants had a history of premature menopause. For these women, the average age at menopause was 36.7 years. The average age at study enrollment for women with and for those without a history of premature menopause was 60 and 61.5 years, respectively. During an average follow-up of 9.1 years, 42,699 (3.0%) developed heart failure, and 44,834 (3.2%) developed atrial fibrillation.

The researchers analyzed the association between history of premature menopause and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, income, body mass index, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, HRT, and age at menarche. Women who experienced premature menopause had a 33% higher risk for heart failure and 9% higher risk for atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not.
 

Reproductive history

The researchers then analyzed the associations between age at menopause and incidence of heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for the same factors as in the previous analyses. The risk for incident heart failure increased as the age at menopause decreased. Compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause, those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause had 11%, 23%, and 39% greater risk for incident heart failure, respectively. Similarly, the risk for incident atrial fibrillation increased as the age at menopause decreased; the risk was 4%, 10%, and 11% higher for those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause, respectively, compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause.

The authors said that several factors may explain the associations between menopausal age, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, such as the drop in estrogen levels and changes in body fat distribution.

Dr. Nam concluded, “The misconception that heart disease primarily affects men has meant that sex-specific risk factors have been largely ignored. Evidence is growing that undergoing menopause before the age of 40 years may increase the likelihood of heart disease later in life. Our study indicates that reproductive history should be routinely considered in addition to traditional risk factors such as smoking when evaluating the future likelihood of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

SEOUL, South Korea – Menopause before age 40 is associated with elevated risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, according to a study published in European Heart Journal, from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The study of more than 1.4 million women revealed that the younger the age at menopause, the higher the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

“Women with premature menopause should be aware that they may be more likely to develop heart failure or atrial fibrillation than their peers,” said study author Ga Eun Nam, MD, PhD, of Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. “This may be good motivation to improve lifestyle habits known to be linked with heart disease, such as quitting smoking and exercising.”

Cardiovascular disease typically occurs up to 10 years later in women than men. Premenopausal women are thought to benefit from estrogen’s protective effect on the cardiovascular system. The cessation of menstruation and subsequent decline of estrogen levels may make women more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.
 

A national population

Premature menopause affects 1% of women younger than 40 years, the ESC press release stated. Prior studies have found a link between premature (before age 40 years) and early (before age 45 years) menopause and cardiovascular disease overall, but the evidence for heart failure or atrial fibrillation alone is limited. This study examined the associations between premature menopause, age at menopause, and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS), which provides health screening at least every 2 years and includes 97% of the population.

The study included 1,401,175 postmenopausal women aged 30 years and older who completed the NHIS health checkup in 2009. Participants were monitored until the end of 2018 for new-onset heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Information was collected on demographics, health behaviors, and reproductive factors, including age at menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Age at menopause was split into four categories: younger than 40 years, 40-44 years, 45-49 years, and 50 years or older. Premature menopause was defined as having the final menstrual period before age 40 years.

Some 28,111 (2%) participants had a history of premature menopause. For these women, the average age at menopause was 36.7 years. The average age at study enrollment for women with and for those without a history of premature menopause was 60 and 61.5 years, respectively. During an average follow-up of 9.1 years, 42,699 (3.0%) developed heart failure, and 44,834 (3.2%) developed atrial fibrillation.

The researchers analyzed the association between history of premature menopause and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, income, body mass index, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, HRT, and age at menarche. Women who experienced premature menopause had a 33% higher risk for heart failure and 9% higher risk for atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not.
 

Reproductive history

The researchers then analyzed the associations between age at menopause and incidence of heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for the same factors as in the previous analyses. The risk for incident heart failure increased as the age at menopause decreased. Compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause, those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause had 11%, 23%, and 39% greater risk for incident heart failure, respectively. Similarly, the risk for incident atrial fibrillation increased as the age at menopause decreased; the risk was 4%, 10%, and 11% higher for those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause, respectively, compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause.

The authors said that several factors may explain the associations between menopausal age, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, such as the drop in estrogen levels and changes in body fat distribution.

Dr. Nam concluded, “The misconception that heart disease primarily affects men has meant that sex-specific risk factors have been largely ignored. Evidence is growing that undergoing menopause before the age of 40 years may increase the likelihood of heart disease later in life. Our study indicates that reproductive history should be routinely considered in addition to traditional risk factors such as smoking when evaluating the future likelihood of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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