Heart Failure

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a higher risk for heart failure (HF) than those without the condition, with the elevated risk primarily driven by HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Mass General Brigham Biobank to investigate the risk for overall HF and its subtypes, particularly HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF, in patients with RA.
• They included 1445 patients newly diagnosed with RA (mean age, 51.4 years; 78.7% women) and 4335 matched comparators without RA.
• Patients with RA were identified using diagnosis codes and RA-related natural language processing concepts.
• HFpEF and HFrEF were defined as HF with an EF ≥ 50% and ≤ 40%, respectively; incidences for overall HF, HFpEF, and HFrEF were calculated per 1000 person-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study identified 92 incident HF cases in the RA cohort and 157 in the non-RA cohort over a median follow-up of 10.3 years per patient.
• HFpEF was the predominant HF subtype in both cohorts, with a higher incidence in patients with RA than in those without the condition (4.33 vs 2.11 per 1000 person-years).
• Patients with RA showed a 79% higher risk for HF than those without the condition (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32).
• Among the HF subtypes, patients with RA had a significantly increased risk for HFpEF (aHR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.43-2.77) but not for HFrEF.

IN PRACTICE:

“RA can be considered a human model for inflammation, and findings from this study support the notion that chronic inflammation increases risk for HFpEF,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yumeko Kawano, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was conducted within an academic tertiary hospital system and involved participants from a biobank, which may have introduced selection bias and limited generalizability. The study did not account for post-baseline variables that could mediate the observed associations, such as the chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, or specific disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study relied on the availability of clinically performed cardiology studies for HF subtyping, possibly introducing misclassification of HF.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author received support from the Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award, National Institutes of Health.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a higher risk for heart failure (HF) than those without the condition, with the elevated risk primarily driven by HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Mass General Brigham Biobank to investigate the risk for overall HF and its subtypes, particularly HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF, in patients with RA.
• They included 1445 patients newly diagnosed with RA (mean age, 51.4 years; 78.7% women) and 4335 matched comparators without RA.
• Patients with RA were identified using diagnosis codes and RA-related natural language processing concepts.
• HFpEF and HFrEF were defined as HF with an EF ≥ 50% and ≤ 40%, respectively; incidences for overall HF, HFpEF, and HFrEF were calculated per 1000 person-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study identified 92 incident HF cases in the RA cohort and 157 in the non-RA cohort over a median follow-up of 10.3 years per patient.
• HFpEF was the predominant HF subtype in both cohorts, with a higher incidence in patients with RA than in those without the condition (4.33 vs 2.11 per 1000 person-years).
• Patients with RA showed a 79% higher risk for HF than those without the condition (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32).
• Among the HF subtypes, patients with RA had a significantly increased risk for HFpEF (aHR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.43-2.77) but not for HFrEF.

IN PRACTICE:

“RA can be considered a human model for inflammation, and findings from this study support the notion that chronic inflammation increases risk for HFpEF,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yumeko Kawano, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was conducted within an academic tertiary hospital system and involved participants from a biobank, which may have introduced selection bias and limited generalizability. The study did not account for post-baseline variables that could mediate the observed associations, such as the chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, or specific disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study relied on the availability of clinically performed cardiology studies for HF subtyping, possibly introducing misclassification of HF.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author received support from the Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award, National Institutes of Health.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a higher risk for heart failure (HF) than those without the condition, with the elevated risk primarily driven by HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Mass General Brigham Biobank to investigate the risk for overall HF and its subtypes, particularly HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF, in patients with RA.
• They included 1445 patients newly diagnosed with RA (mean age, 51.4 years; 78.7% women) and 4335 matched comparators without RA.
• Patients with RA were identified using diagnosis codes and RA-related natural language processing concepts.
• HFpEF and HFrEF were defined as HF with an EF ≥ 50% and ≤ 40%, respectively; incidences for overall HF, HFpEF, and HFrEF were calculated per 1000 person-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study identified 92 incident HF cases in the RA cohort and 157 in the non-RA cohort over a median follow-up of 10.3 years per patient.
• HFpEF was the predominant HF subtype in both cohorts, with a higher incidence in patients with RA than in those without the condition (4.33 vs 2.11 per 1000 person-years).
• Patients with RA showed a 79% higher risk for HF than those without the condition (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32).
• Among the HF subtypes, patients with RA had a significantly increased risk for HFpEF (aHR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.43-2.77) but not for HFrEF.

IN PRACTICE:

“RA can be considered a human model for inflammation, and findings from this study support the notion that chronic inflammation increases risk for HFpEF,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yumeko Kawano, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was conducted within an academic tertiary hospital system and involved participants from a biobank, which may have introduced selection bias and limited generalizability. The study did not account for post-baseline variables that could mediate the observed associations, such as the chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, or specific disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study relied on the availability of clinically performed cardiology studies for HF subtyping, possibly introducing misclassification of HF.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author received support from the Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award, National Institutes of Health.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The administration of potassium nitrate (KNO₃) does not improve exercise capacity or quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), despite increasing levels of nitric oxide in blood.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter crossover trial, conducted across three centers in the United States, assessed the effect of administering KNO3 on exercise capacity and quality of life.
• It included 84 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (median age, 68 years; 69% women; 76% White) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction over 50% and elevated intracardiac pressures. Participants had obesity (mean body mass index, 36.22), with a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnea.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 mmol KNO₃ first (n = 41) or 6 mmol potassium chloride (KCl) first (n = 43) three times daily for 6 weeks, with a 1-week washout period in between.
• At the end of each intervention phase, a test of incremental cardiopulmonary exercise was conducted using a supine cycle ergometer.
• Primary endpoints were the difference in peak oxygen uptake and total work performed during the exercise test; secondary endpoints included quality of life, left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, exercise systemic vasodilatory reserve, and parameters related to pulsatile arterial load.

TAKEAWAY:

• The administration of KNO₃ vs KCl increased the levels of serum metabolites of nitric oxide significantly after 6 weeks (418.44 vs 40.11 μM; P < .001).
• Peak oxygen uptake or the total work performed did not improve significantly with the administration of KNO₃, compared with KCl. Quality of life also did not improve with the administration of KNO₃.
• Mean arterial pressure at peak exercise was significantly lower after the administration of KNO₃ than after KCl (122.5 vs 127.6 mm Hg; P = .04), but the vasodilatory reserve and resting and orthostatic blood pressure did not differ.
• Adverse events were mostly minor, with gastrointestinal issues being the most common side effects reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this randomized crossover trial, chronic KNO₃ administration did not improve exercise capacity or quality of life, as compared with KCl among participants with HFpEF,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Payman Zamani, MD, MTR, of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on December 18, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The potential activation of compensatory mechanisms by the chronic inorganic nitrate administration may have neutralized the short-term benefits. Various abnormalities in oxygen transport may be present simultaneously in patients with HFpEF, suggesting a combination of interventions may be required to improve exercise capacity.

DISCLOSURES:

This trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and consulting fees and having patents from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies and institutes. One author reported having full-time employment with a healthcare company.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The administration of potassium nitrate (KNO₃) does not improve exercise capacity or quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), despite increasing levels of nitric oxide in blood.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter crossover trial, conducted across three centers in the United States, assessed the effect of administering KNO3 on exercise capacity and quality of life.
• It included 84 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (median age, 68 years; 69% women; 76% White) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction over 50% and elevated intracardiac pressures. Participants had obesity (mean body mass index, 36.22), with a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnea.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 mmol KNO₃ first (n = 41) or 6 mmol potassium chloride (KCl) first (n = 43) three times daily for 6 weeks, with a 1-week washout period in between.
• At the end of each intervention phase, a test of incremental cardiopulmonary exercise was conducted using a supine cycle ergometer.
• Primary endpoints were the difference in peak oxygen uptake and total work performed during the exercise test; secondary endpoints included quality of life, left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, exercise systemic vasodilatory reserve, and parameters related to pulsatile arterial load.

TAKEAWAY:

• The administration of KNO₃ vs KCl increased the levels of serum metabolites of nitric oxide significantly after 6 weeks (418.44 vs 40.11 μM; P < .001).
• Peak oxygen uptake or the total work performed did not improve significantly with the administration of KNO₃, compared with KCl. Quality of life also did not improve with the administration of KNO₃.
• Mean arterial pressure at peak exercise was significantly lower after the administration of KNO₃ than after KCl (122.5 vs 127.6 mm Hg; P = .04), but the vasodilatory reserve and resting and orthostatic blood pressure did not differ.
• Adverse events were mostly minor, with gastrointestinal issues being the most common side effects reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this randomized crossover trial, chronic KNO₃ administration did not improve exercise capacity or quality of life, as compared with KCl among participants with HFpEF,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Payman Zamani, MD, MTR, of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on December 18, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The potential activation of compensatory mechanisms by the chronic inorganic nitrate administration may have neutralized the short-term benefits. Various abnormalities in oxygen transport may be present simultaneously in patients with HFpEF, suggesting a combination of interventions may be required to improve exercise capacity.

DISCLOSURES:

This trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and consulting fees and having patents from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies and institutes. One author reported having full-time employment with a healthcare company.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The administration of potassium nitrate (KNO₃) does not improve exercise capacity or quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), despite increasing levels of nitric oxide in blood.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter crossover trial, conducted across three centers in the United States, assessed the effect of administering KNO3 on exercise capacity and quality of life.
• It included 84 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (median age, 68 years; 69% women; 76% White) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction over 50% and elevated intracardiac pressures. Participants had obesity (mean body mass index, 36.22), with a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnea.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 mmol KNO₃ first (n = 41) or 6 mmol potassium chloride (KCl) first (n = 43) three times daily for 6 weeks, with a 1-week washout period in between.
• At the end of each intervention phase, a test of incremental cardiopulmonary exercise was conducted using a supine cycle ergometer.
• Primary endpoints were the difference in peak oxygen uptake and total work performed during the exercise test; secondary endpoints included quality of life, left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, exercise systemic vasodilatory reserve, and parameters related to pulsatile arterial load.

TAKEAWAY:

• The administration of KNO₃ vs KCl increased the levels of serum metabolites of nitric oxide significantly after 6 weeks (418.44 vs 40.11 μM; P < .001).
• Peak oxygen uptake or the total work performed did not improve significantly with the administration of KNO₃, compared with KCl. Quality of life also did not improve with the administration of KNO₃.
• Mean arterial pressure at peak exercise was significantly lower after the administration of KNO₃ than after KCl (122.5 vs 127.6 mm Hg; P = .04), but the vasodilatory reserve and resting and orthostatic blood pressure did not differ.
• Adverse events were mostly minor, with gastrointestinal issues being the most common side effects reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this randomized crossover trial, chronic KNO₃ administration did not improve exercise capacity or quality of life, as compared with KCl among participants with HFpEF,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Payman Zamani, MD, MTR, of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on December 18, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The potential activation of compensatory mechanisms by the chronic inorganic nitrate administration may have neutralized the short-term benefits. Various abnormalities in oxygen transport may be present simultaneously in patients with HFpEF, suggesting a combination of interventions may be required to improve exercise capacity.

DISCLOSURES:

This trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and consulting fees and having patents from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies and institutes. One author reported having full-time employment with a healthcare company.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with anorexia nervosa are at significantly increased risk for cardiovascular conditions such as heart failure and cardiac arrest, compared with people without an eating disorder, researchers found. The risk for many of these conditions declines after 5 years of follow-up, whereas the risk for ischemic heart disease rises only after that period.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study by analyzing the data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database to investigate the incidences and risk for cardiovascular conditions in patients with anorexia.
• They included 22,891 participants (mean age, 24.9 years; 91.3% women), of whom 2081 were diagnosed with anorexia between January 2010 and December 2021 and 20,810 were matched control participants without any eating disorder.
• The mean follow-up duration of this study was 5 years; investigators also assessed the risk for individual cardiovascular conditions during three periods after the diagnosis of anorexia: 0-24 months, between 24 and 60 months, and greater than 60 months.
• The primary outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and any cardiovascular condition, including heart failure, stroke, ischemic heart diseases, conduction disorder, inflammatory heart disease, valve disease, cardiomyopathy, atherosclerosis, and cardiac arrest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence and risk for MACE were higher in patients with anorexia than in those without (4.82% vs 0.85% and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.78; 95% CI, 2.83-5.05, respectively).
• Similarly, the incidence of any cardiovascular condition was higher in patients with anorexia than in those without (6.19% vs 2.27%), which translated to a nearly twofold increased risk (aHR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
• Patients with anorexia showed elevated risks for individual cardiovascular conditions such as cardiac arrest, structural heart disease, conduction disorder, and heart failure, but not stroke, atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, or inflammatory heart disease.
• The risks for congestive heart failure, structural heart disease, and conduction disorder increased in the first 24 months after the diagnosis of anorexia and disappeared after 5 years of follow-up, whereas the risk for ischemic heart disease increased only after 5 years of follow-up.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should monitor comorbid cardiovascular conditions among patients with [anorexia] at initial presentation, during treatment, and at follow-up,” the authors of the study wrote.

“In this study, most cardiovascular conditions were in remission after 5 years except ischemic heart disease,” the researchers noted. “This finding is corroborated by the recovery rate of 50%-70% in patients with [anorexia] after 4 years of follow-up in a recent meta-analysis, and in previous studies, most of the cardiac complications improved with weight restoration. Similarly, genome-wide association studies did not support elevated cardiovascular risk in patients with [anorexia] due to shared genetic mechanisms between [anorexia] and cardiovascular diseases, but they suggested that cardiovascular diseases were a downstream consequence” of the eating disorder.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mei-Chih Meg Tseng, MD, PhD, of the Department of Psychiatry at Taipei Medical University in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 19, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cardiovascular outcomes relied on the clinical diagnoses, and the validity of anorexia or its subtype was not confirmed. The study population was limited to patients seeking medical treatment, which may have led to the inclusion of patients with more severe symptoms. Key potential confounders such as body weight, nutritional status, lifestyle, drug use, and family history were unavailable in the claims dataset and could not be adjusted. The generalizability of the study may be limited as it involved only participants from a single ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and Taipei Medical University. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with anorexia nervosa are at significantly increased risk for cardiovascular conditions such as heart failure and cardiac arrest, compared with people without an eating disorder, researchers found. The risk for many of these conditions declines after 5 years of follow-up, whereas the risk for ischemic heart disease rises only after that period.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study by analyzing the data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database to investigate the incidences and risk for cardiovascular conditions in patients with anorexia.
• They included 22,891 participants (mean age, 24.9 years; 91.3% women), of whom 2081 were diagnosed with anorexia between January 2010 and December 2021 and 20,810 were matched control participants without any eating disorder.
• The mean follow-up duration of this study was 5 years; investigators also assessed the risk for individual cardiovascular conditions during three periods after the diagnosis of anorexia: 0-24 months, between 24 and 60 months, and greater than 60 months.
• The primary outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and any cardiovascular condition, including heart failure, stroke, ischemic heart diseases, conduction disorder, inflammatory heart disease, valve disease, cardiomyopathy, atherosclerosis, and cardiac arrest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence and risk for MACE were higher in patients with anorexia than in those without (4.82% vs 0.85% and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.78; 95% CI, 2.83-5.05, respectively).
• Similarly, the incidence of any cardiovascular condition was higher in patients with anorexia than in those without (6.19% vs 2.27%), which translated to a nearly twofold increased risk (aHR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
• Patients with anorexia showed elevated risks for individual cardiovascular conditions such as cardiac arrest, structural heart disease, conduction disorder, and heart failure, but not stroke, atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, or inflammatory heart disease.
• The risks for congestive heart failure, structural heart disease, and conduction disorder increased in the first 24 months after the diagnosis of anorexia and disappeared after 5 years of follow-up, whereas the risk for ischemic heart disease increased only after 5 years of follow-up.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should monitor comorbid cardiovascular conditions among patients with [anorexia] at initial presentation, during treatment, and at follow-up,” the authors of the study wrote.

“In this study, most cardiovascular conditions were in remission after 5 years except ischemic heart disease,” the researchers noted. “This finding is corroborated by the recovery rate of 50%-70% in patients with [anorexia] after 4 years of follow-up in a recent meta-analysis, and in previous studies, most of the cardiac complications improved with weight restoration. Similarly, genome-wide association studies did not support elevated cardiovascular risk in patients with [anorexia] due to shared genetic mechanisms between [anorexia] and cardiovascular diseases, but they suggested that cardiovascular diseases were a downstream consequence” of the eating disorder.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mei-Chih Meg Tseng, MD, PhD, of the Department of Psychiatry at Taipei Medical University in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 19, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cardiovascular outcomes relied on the clinical diagnoses, and the validity of anorexia or its subtype was not confirmed. The study population was limited to patients seeking medical treatment, which may have led to the inclusion of patients with more severe symptoms. Key potential confounders such as body weight, nutritional status, lifestyle, drug use, and family history were unavailable in the claims dataset and could not be adjusted. The generalizability of the study may be limited as it involved only participants from a single ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and Taipei Medical University. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with anorexia nervosa are at significantly increased risk for cardiovascular conditions such as heart failure and cardiac arrest, compared with people without an eating disorder, researchers found. The risk for many of these conditions declines after 5 years of follow-up, whereas the risk for ischemic heart disease rises only after that period.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study by analyzing the data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database to investigate the incidences and risk for cardiovascular conditions in patients with anorexia.
• They included 22,891 participants (mean age, 24.9 years; 91.3% women), of whom 2081 were diagnosed with anorexia between January 2010 and December 2021 and 20,810 were matched control participants without any eating disorder.
• The mean follow-up duration of this study was 5 years; investigators also assessed the risk for individual cardiovascular conditions during three periods after the diagnosis of anorexia: 0-24 months, between 24 and 60 months, and greater than 60 months.
• The primary outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and any cardiovascular condition, including heart failure, stroke, ischemic heart diseases, conduction disorder, inflammatory heart disease, valve disease, cardiomyopathy, atherosclerosis, and cardiac arrest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence and risk for MACE were higher in patients with anorexia than in those without (4.82% vs 0.85% and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.78; 95% CI, 2.83-5.05, respectively).
• Similarly, the incidence of any cardiovascular condition was higher in patients with anorexia than in those without (6.19% vs 2.27%), which translated to a nearly twofold increased risk (aHR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
• Patients with anorexia showed elevated risks for individual cardiovascular conditions such as cardiac arrest, structural heart disease, conduction disorder, and heart failure, but not stroke, atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, or inflammatory heart disease.
• The risks for congestive heart failure, structural heart disease, and conduction disorder increased in the first 24 months after the diagnosis of anorexia and disappeared after 5 years of follow-up, whereas the risk for ischemic heart disease increased only after 5 years of follow-up.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should monitor comorbid cardiovascular conditions among patients with [anorexia] at initial presentation, during treatment, and at follow-up,” the authors of the study wrote.

“In this study, most cardiovascular conditions were in remission after 5 years except ischemic heart disease,” the researchers noted. “This finding is corroborated by the recovery rate of 50%-70% in patients with [anorexia] after 4 years of follow-up in a recent meta-analysis, and in previous studies, most of the cardiac complications improved with weight restoration. Similarly, genome-wide association studies did not support elevated cardiovascular risk in patients with [anorexia] due to shared genetic mechanisms between [anorexia] and cardiovascular diseases, but they suggested that cardiovascular diseases were a downstream consequence” of the eating disorder.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mei-Chih Meg Tseng, MD, PhD, of the Department of Psychiatry at Taipei Medical University in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 19, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cardiovascular outcomes relied on the clinical diagnoses, and the validity of anorexia or its subtype was not confirmed. The study population was limited to patients seeking medical treatment, which may have led to the inclusion of patients with more severe symptoms. Key potential confounders such as body weight, nutritional status, lifestyle, drug use, and family history were unavailable in the claims dataset and could not be adjusted. The generalizability of the study may be limited as it involved only participants from a single ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and Taipei Medical University. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Patients with celiac disease who take an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) may experience worse outcomes, such as increased risk of iron deficiency, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The association may be related to the similar pathophysiology between ARB-associated enteropathy and celiac disease, though additional research is needed.

“Based on our findings, people should take caution when prescribing angiotensin receptor blockers to people with celiac disease,” said lead author Isabel Hujoel, MD, clinical assistant professor of gastroenterology and clinic director of the Celiac Disease Center at the University of Washington, Seattle.

 

University of Washington, Seattle

“When we see someone with nonresponsive celiac disease, meaning persistent symptoms despite a gluten-free diet, I do think we should review their medication list, and if they’re on an ARB, we should consider a trial off those medications to see if they respond,” she said. “A primary care provider may choose other hypertensives as well.”

Hujoel and co-author Margaux Hujoel, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Broad Institute, Cambridge; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed data from the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us, a large publicly available US longitudinal dataset.

The researchers conducted a survival analysis of time-to-first event after celiac disease diagnosis, allowing patients to have a time-dependent covariate of ARB use. They looked at outcomes such as iron deficiency, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vitamin deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, malabsorption, low hemoglobin, and weight loss.

The analysis included 1849 patients with celiac disease, including 1460 women and 389 men, with a median age of nearly 50 years at diagnosis. While the vast majority of patients (nearly 1600) didn’t take an ARB, 120 started one before celiac disease diagnosis and 142 started one after diagnosis.

Overall, taking an ARB was associated with increased hazard ratios [HRs] for low hemoglobin, iron deficiency, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. There weren’t increased risks for weight loss, malabsorption, or vitamin deficiencies.

When excluding those who had an ARB prescription before diagnosis, the HRs remained significantly higher for low hemoglobin (HR, 1.98) and iron deficiency (HR, 1.72) for those who started an ARB after diagnosis.

“The use of angiotensin receptor blockers may be associated with worse outcomes in the setting of celiac disease, specifically persistent symptoms and possibly poor small bowel healing as evidenced by malabsorption,” Hujoel said.

Future studies could look specifically at losartan, which was the most common ARB prescribed in this analysis, she said. Other studies could also analyze different patient outcomes, whether patients were on a gluten-free diet, medication adherence, and recurrence or persistence of symptoms rather than initial occurrence. The associations between ARB use and celiac disease could shift among patients who are in remission, for instance.

“ARBs are some of the most widely used medications, so studies like these can help people to understand that they may have symptoms but not know it’s related to their medication. Public awareness of this fact is key,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami. Jones co-moderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.

 

University of Miami

“There are many types of antihypertensives, so while ARBs are used often, other options are available if people have symptoms, especially if they have worsening symptoms with celiac disease,” she said. “It’s important to make changes in your practice.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Isabel Hujoel and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Patients with celiac disease who take an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) may experience worse outcomes, such as increased risk of iron deficiency, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The association may be related to the similar pathophysiology between ARB-associated enteropathy and celiac disease, though additional research is needed.

“Based on our findings, people should take caution when prescribing angiotensin receptor blockers to people with celiac disease,” said lead author Isabel Hujoel, MD, clinical assistant professor of gastroenterology and clinic director of the Celiac Disease Center at the University of Washington, Seattle.

 

University of Washington, Seattle

“When we see someone with nonresponsive celiac disease, meaning persistent symptoms despite a gluten-free diet, I do think we should review their medication list, and if they’re on an ARB, we should consider a trial off those medications to see if they respond,” she said. “A primary care provider may choose other hypertensives as well.”

Hujoel and co-author Margaux Hujoel, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Broad Institute, Cambridge; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed data from the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us, a large publicly available US longitudinal dataset.

The researchers conducted a survival analysis of time-to-first event after celiac disease diagnosis, allowing patients to have a time-dependent covariate of ARB use. They looked at outcomes such as iron deficiency, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vitamin deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, malabsorption, low hemoglobin, and weight loss.

The analysis included 1849 patients with celiac disease, including 1460 women and 389 men, with a median age of nearly 50 years at diagnosis. While the vast majority of patients (nearly 1600) didn’t take an ARB, 120 started one before celiac disease diagnosis and 142 started one after diagnosis.

Overall, taking an ARB was associated with increased hazard ratios [HRs] for low hemoglobin, iron deficiency, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. There weren’t increased risks for weight loss, malabsorption, or vitamin deficiencies.

When excluding those who had an ARB prescription before diagnosis, the HRs remained significantly higher for low hemoglobin (HR, 1.98) and iron deficiency (HR, 1.72) for those who started an ARB after diagnosis.

“The use of angiotensin receptor blockers may be associated with worse outcomes in the setting of celiac disease, specifically persistent symptoms and possibly poor small bowel healing as evidenced by malabsorption,” Hujoel said.

Future studies could look specifically at losartan, which was the most common ARB prescribed in this analysis, she said. Other studies could also analyze different patient outcomes, whether patients were on a gluten-free diet, medication adherence, and recurrence or persistence of symptoms rather than initial occurrence. The associations between ARB use and celiac disease could shift among patients who are in remission, for instance.

“ARBs are some of the most widely used medications, so studies like these can help people to understand that they may have symptoms but not know it’s related to their medication. Public awareness of this fact is key,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami. Jones co-moderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.

 

University of Miami

“There are many types of antihypertensives, so while ARBs are used often, other options are available if people have symptoms, especially if they have worsening symptoms with celiac disease,” she said. “It’s important to make changes in your practice.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Isabel Hujoel and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Patients with celiac disease who take an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) may experience worse outcomes, such as increased risk of iron deficiency, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The association may be related to the similar pathophysiology between ARB-associated enteropathy and celiac disease, though additional research is needed.

“Based on our findings, people should take caution when prescribing angiotensin receptor blockers to people with celiac disease,” said lead author Isabel Hujoel, MD, clinical assistant professor of gastroenterology and clinic director of the Celiac Disease Center at the University of Washington, Seattle.

 

University of Washington, Seattle

“When we see someone with nonresponsive celiac disease, meaning persistent symptoms despite a gluten-free diet, I do think we should review their medication list, and if they’re on an ARB, we should consider a trial off those medications to see if they respond,” she said. “A primary care provider may choose other hypertensives as well.”

Hujoel and co-author Margaux Hujoel, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Broad Institute, Cambridge; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed data from the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us, a large publicly available US longitudinal dataset.

The researchers conducted a survival analysis of time-to-first event after celiac disease diagnosis, allowing patients to have a time-dependent covariate of ARB use. They looked at outcomes such as iron deficiency, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vitamin deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, malabsorption, low hemoglobin, and weight loss.

The analysis included 1849 patients with celiac disease, including 1460 women and 389 men, with a median age of nearly 50 years at diagnosis. While the vast majority of patients (nearly 1600) didn’t take an ARB, 120 started one before celiac disease diagnosis and 142 started one after diagnosis.

Overall, taking an ARB was associated with increased hazard ratios [HRs] for low hemoglobin, iron deficiency, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. There weren’t increased risks for weight loss, malabsorption, or vitamin deficiencies.

When excluding those who had an ARB prescription before diagnosis, the HRs remained significantly higher for low hemoglobin (HR, 1.98) and iron deficiency (HR, 1.72) for those who started an ARB after diagnosis.

“The use of angiotensin receptor blockers may be associated with worse outcomes in the setting of celiac disease, specifically persistent symptoms and possibly poor small bowel healing as evidenced by malabsorption,” Hujoel said.

Future studies could look specifically at losartan, which was the most common ARB prescribed in this analysis, she said. Other studies could also analyze different patient outcomes, whether patients were on a gluten-free diet, medication adherence, and recurrence or persistence of symptoms rather than initial occurrence. The associations between ARB use and celiac disease could shift among patients who are in remission, for instance.

“ARBs are some of the most widely used medications, so studies like these can help people to understand that they may have symptoms but not know it’s related to their medication. Public awareness of this fact is key,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami. Jones co-moderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.

 

University of Miami

“There are many types of antihypertensives, so while ARBs are used often, other options are available if people have symptoms, especially if they have worsening symptoms with celiac disease,” she said. “It’s important to make changes in your practice.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Isabel Hujoel and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.