Hypertension

The search for a better biomarker than creatine for acute kidney injury (AKI) has been “long and elusive.” However, could researchers be on the right path now?

“The thinking is moving away from trying to find one biomarker that can be used for different types of kidney injury to a recognition that AKI is not just a single disease that a patient has or doesn’t have,” Rob D. Nerenz, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization. “It’s lots of different diseases that all affect the kidney in different ways.”

AKI is actually a “loose collection” of hepatorenal, cardiorenal, nephrotoxic, and sepsis-associated syndromes, as well as acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), he said. “So the question is not: ‘Is AKI present — yes or no?’ It’s: ‘What kind of AKI is present, and how do I treat it?’ ”
 

‘Mediocre Markers’

AKI affects about 10%-30% of hospitalized patients, according to Nerenz. It’s associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes, including post-AKI chronic kidney disease and a mortality rate of approximately 24%.

Currently, AKI is defined by a rapid increase in serum creatinine, a decrease in urine output, or both.

“Those are mediocre markers,” Nerenz said, as serum creatinine is not very sensitive to acute change, and the increase is often detected after the therapeutic window of intervention has passed. In addition, “it only tells us that the kidneys are unhappy; it doesn’t say anything about the cause.”

Urine output is limited as a marker because many conditions affect it. “If you’re dehydrated, urine output is going to decrease,” he said. “And in some forms of AKI, urine output actually goes up.”

What’s needed, he said, is a more sensitive biomarker that’s detectable within a shorter timeframe of 2-6 hours following injury.

“Right now, we’re looking at 48 hours before a change becomes apparent, and that’s just too long. Plus, it should be kidney specific. One of the major limitations of the biomarkers that have been evaluated to this point is that, yes, they’re released by the kidney, but they’re also released by other tissue types within the body, and that hinders their effectiveness as a marker.”
 

Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL)

Although research on better biomarkers is ongoing, “there’s also a recognition that some of the protein markers that have been around for a while, if used appropriately, can provide value,” Nerenz said. These include, among others, NGAL.

NGAL works well in pediatric patients without other comorbidities, but it has been less useful in adult patients because it is also released by other cell types. However, recent research suggests it shows promise in patients with both cirrhosis and AKI.

There are three main causes of AKI in cirrhosis, Nerenz explained. The first is prerenal and can be primarily addressed through rehydration.

“When these patients come in, clinicians won’t do anything right away other than provide fluids. If creatinine improves over the 48-hour period of fluid replenishment, then the patient is sent home because there really isn’t extensive damage to the kidneys.”

If improvement isn’t seen after those 48 hours, then it could be one of two things: Hepatorenal syndrome or acute tubular necrosis. Patients with hepatorenal syndrome are candidates for terlipressin, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for this indication in 2022 after it displayed notable efficacy in a double-blind study.

“You don’t want to give terlipressin to just anybody because if the issue is not a diminished blood supply to the kidney, it’s not going to help, and comes with some serious side effects, such as respiratory failure,” Nerenz explained. “Having a biomarker that can distinguish between hepatorenal syndrome and acute tubular necrosis really helps clinicians confidently identify which patients are good candidates for this drug. Right now, we’re flying blind to a certain extent, basically using clinical intuition.”

Currently, the determination of NGAL is FDA cleared only for pediatric use. One way hospitals have dealt with that is by making the test in their own labs, using appropriate reagents, validation, and so forth. These tests are then safe for use in adults but haven’t gone through the FDA approval process.

However, the FDA’s recent announcement stating that the agency should oversee lab-developed tests has made this situation unclear, Nerenz said.

“At this point, we don’t know if there’s still an opportunity to take the NGAL test (or any other cleared biomarker) and validate it for use in a different patient population. Many hospital labs simply don’t have the resources to take these tests through the whole FDA approval process.”
 

A New Biomarker for AIN?

Meanwhile, research is also moving forward on a better biomarker for AIN, which is also under the AKI umbrella.

“It’s important to diagnose AIN because it has a very specific treatment,” Dennis G. Moledina, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization.

“AIN is caused by a bunch of different medications, such as proton pump inhibitors, cancer drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antibiotics, so when someone has this condition, you have to stop potentially life-saving medications and give unnecessary and potentially toxic immunosuppressive drugs, like prednisone,” he said. “If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’re stopping vital drugs and giving immunosuppression for no reason. And if you miss the diagnosis, AIN can lead to permanent chronic kidney disease.”

“Right now, the only way to diagnose AIN is to do a kidney biopsy, which is risky because it can often lead to significant bleeding,” he said. “Some people can’t undergo a biopsy because they’re on medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and they can’t be stopped.”

Furthermore, he noted, “the longer a patient takes a drug that’s causing AIN without getting a diagnosis, the less the chances of recovery because the longer you let this kidney inflammation go on, the more fibrosis and permanent damage develops. So it is important to diagnose it as early as possible, and that’s again why we have a real need for a noninvasive biomarker that can be tested rapidly.”

Moledina and colleagues have been working on identifying a suitable biomarker for close to 10 years, the latest example of which is their 2023 study validating urinary CXCL9 as just such a marker.

“We’re most excited about CXCL9 because it’s already used to diagnose some other diseases in plasma,” Moledina said. “We think that we can convince labs to test it in urine.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mark Canney, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, wrote that the CXCL9 study findings “are exciting because they provide a road map of where diagnostics can get to for this common, yet poorly identified and treated, cause of kidney damage. The need for a different approach can be readily identified from the fact that clinicians’ gestalt for diagnosing AIN was almost tantamount to tossing a coin (AUC, 0.57). CXCL9 alone outperformed not only the clinician’s prebiopsy suspicion but also an existing diagnostic model and other candidate biomarkers both in the discovery and external validation cohorts.”

Like NGAL, CXCL9 will have to go through the FDA approval process before it can be used for AIN. Therefore, it may be a few years before it can become routinely available, Moledina said.

Nevertheless, Nerenz added, “I think the next steps for AKI are probably continuing on this path of context-dependent, selective biomarker use. I anticipate that we’ll see ongoing development in this space, just expanding to a wider variety of clinical scenarios.”

Nerenz declared receiving research funding from Abbott Labs for evaluation of an AKI biomarker. Moledina is a co-inventor on a pending patent, “Methods and Systems for Diagnosis of Acute Interstitial Nephritis”; a cofounder of the diagnostics company Predict AIN; and a consultant for Biohaven.

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

The search for a better biomarker than creatine for acute kidney injury (AKI) has been “long and elusive.” However, could researchers be on the right path now?

“The thinking is moving away from trying to find one biomarker that can be used for different types of kidney injury to a recognition that AKI is not just a single disease that a patient has or doesn’t have,” Rob D. Nerenz, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization. “It’s lots of different diseases that all affect the kidney in different ways.”

AKI is actually a “loose collection” of hepatorenal, cardiorenal, nephrotoxic, and sepsis-associated syndromes, as well as acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), he said. “So the question is not: ‘Is AKI present — yes or no?’ It’s: ‘What kind of AKI is present, and how do I treat it?’ ”
 

‘Mediocre Markers’

AKI affects about 10%-30% of hospitalized patients, according to Nerenz. It’s associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes, including post-AKI chronic kidney disease and a mortality rate of approximately 24%.

Currently, AKI is defined by a rapid increase in serum creatinine, a decrease in urine output, or both.

“Those are mediocre markers,” Nerenz said, as serum creatinine is not very sensitive to acute change, and the increase is often detected after the therapeutic window of intervention has passed. In addition, “it only tells us that the kidneys are unhappy; it doesn’t say anything about the cause.”

Urine output is limited as a marker because many conditions affect it. “If you’re dehydrated, urine output is going to decrease,” he said. “And in some forms of AKI, urine output actually goes up.”

What’s needed, he said, is a more sensitive biomarker that’s detectable within a shorter timeframe of 2-6 hours following injury.

“Right now, we’re looking at 48 hours before a change becomes apparent, and that’s just too long. Plus, it should be kidney specific. One of the major limitations of the biomarkers that have been evaluated to this point is that, yes, they’re released by the kidney, but they’re also released by other tissue types within the body, and that hinders their effectiveness as a marker.”
 

Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL)

Although research on better biomarkers is ongoing, “there’s also a recognition that some of the protein markers that have been around for a while, if used appropriately, can provide value,” Nerenz said. These include, among others, NGAL.

NGAL works well in pediatric patients without other comorbidities, but it has been less useful in adult patients because it is also released by other cell types. However, recent research suggests it shows promise in patients with both cirrhosis and AKI.

There are three main causes of AKI in cirrhosis, Nerenz explained. The first is prerenal and can be primarily addressed through rehydration.

“When these patients come in, clinicians won’t do anything right away other than provide fluids. If creatinine improves over the 48-hour period of fluid replenishment, then the patient is sent home because there really isn’t extensive damage to the kidneys.”

If improvement isn’t seen after those 48 hours, then it could be one of two things: Hepatorenal syndrome or acute tubular necrosis. Patients with hepatorenal syndrome are candidates for terlipressin, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for this indication in 2022 after it displayed notable efficacy in a double-blind study.

“You don’t want to give terlipressin to just anybody because if the issue is not a diminished blood supply to the kidney, it’s not going to help, and comes with some serious side effects, such as respiratory failure,” Nerenz explained. “Having a biomarker that can distinguish between hepatorenal syndrome and acute tubular necrosis really helps clinicians confidently identify which patients are good candidates for this drug. Right now, we’re flying blind to a certain extent, basically using clinical intuition.”

Currently, the determination of NGAL is FDA cleared only for pediatric use. One way hospitals have dealt with that is by making the test in their own labs, using appropriate reagents, validation, and so forth. These tests are then safe for use in adults but haven’t gone through the FDA approval process.

However, the FDA’s recent announcement stating that the agency should oversee lab-developed tests has made this situation unclear, Nerenz said.

“At this point, we don’t know if there’s still an opportunity to take the NGAL test (or any other cleared biomarker) and validate it for use in a different patient population. Many hospital labs simply don’t have the resources to take these tests through the whole FDA approval process.”
 

A New Biomarker for AIN?

Meanwhile, research is also moving forward on a better biomarker for AIN, which is also under the AKI umbrella.

“It’s important to diagnose AIN because it has a very specific treatment,” Dennis G. Moledina, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization.

“AIN is caused by a bunch of different medications, such as proton pump inhibitors, cancer drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antibiotics, so when someone has this condition, you have to stop potentially life-saving medications and give unnecessary and potentially toxic immunosuppressive drugs, like prednisone,” he said. “If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’re stopping vital drugs and giving immunosuppression for no reason. And if you miss the diagnosis, AIN can lead to permanent chronic kidney disease.”

“Right now, the only way to diagnose AIN is to do a kidney biopsy, which is risky because it can often lead to significant bleeding,” he said. “Some people can’t undergo a biopsy because they’re on medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and they can’t be stopped.”

Furthermore, he noted, “the longer a patient takes a drug that’s causing AIN without getting a diagnosis, the less the chances of recovery because the longer you let this kidney inflammation go on, the more fibrosis and permanent damage develops. So it is important to diagnose it as early as possible, and that’s again why we have a real need for a noninvasive biomarker that can be tested rapidly.”

Moledina and colleagues have been working on identifying a suitable biomarker for close to 10 years, the latest example of which is their 2023 study validating urinary CXCL9 as just such a marker.

“We’re most excited about CXCL9 because it’s already used to diagnose some other diseases in plasma,” Moledina said. “We think that we can convince labs to test it in urine.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mark Canney, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, wrote that the CXCL9 study findings “are exciting because they provide a road map of where diagnostics can get to for this common, yet poorly identified and treated, cause of kidney damage. The need for a different approach can be readily identified from the fact that clinicians’ gestalt for diagnosing AIN was almost tantamount to tossing a coin (AUC, 0.57). CXCL9 alone outperformed not only the clinician’s prebiopsy suspicion but also an existing diagnostic model and other candidate biomarkers both in the discovery and external validation cohorts.”

Like NGAL, CXCL9 will have to go through the FDA approval process before it can be used for AIN. Therefore, it may be a few years before it can become routinely available, Moledina said.

Nevertheless, Nerenz added, “I think the next steps for AKI are probably continuing on this path of context-dependent, selective biomarker use. I anticipate that we’ll see ongoing development in this space, just expanding to a wider variety of clinical scenarios.”

Nerenz declared receiving research funding from Abbott Labs for evaluation of an AKI biomarker. Moledina is a co-inventor on a pending patent, “Methods and Systems for Diagnosis of Acute Interstitial Nephritis”; a cofounder of the diagnostics company Predict AIN; and a consultant for Biohaven.

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

The search for a better biomarker than creatine for acute kidney injury (AKI) has been “long and elusive.” However, could researchers be on the right path now?

“The thinking is moving away from trying to find one biomarker that can be used for different types of kidney injury to a recognition that AKI is not just a single disease that a patient has or doesn’t have,” Rob D. Nerenz, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, told this news organization. “It’s lots of different diseases that all affect the kidney in different ways.”

AKI is actually a “loose collection” of hepatorenal, cardiorenal, nephrotoxic, and sepsis-associated syndromes, as well as acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), he said. “So the question is not: ‘Is AKI present — yes or no?’ It’s: ‘What kind of AKI is present, and how do I treat it?’ ”
 

‘Mediocre Markers’

AKI affects about 10%-30% of hospitalized patients, according to Nerenz. It’s associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes, including post-AKI chronic kidney disease and a mortality rate of approximately 24%.

Currently, AKI is defined by a rapid increase in serum creatinine, a decrease in urine output, or both.

“Those are mediocre markers,” Nerenz said, as serum creatinine is not very sensitive to acute change, and the increase is often detected after the therapeutic window of intervention has passed. In addition, “it only tells us that the kidneys are unhappy; it doesn’t say anything about the cause.”

Urine output is limited as a marker because many conditions affect it. “If you’re dehydrated, urine output is going to decrease,” he said. “And in some forms of AKI, urine output actually goes up.”

What’s needed, he said, is a more sensitive biomarker that’s detectable within a shorter timeframe of 2-6 hours following injury.

“Right now, we’re looking at 48 hours before a change becomes apparent, and that’s just too long. Plus, it should be kidney specific. One of the major limitations of the biomarkers that have been evaluated to this point is that, yes, they’re released by the kidney, but they’re also released by other tissue types within the body, and that hinders their effectiveness as a marker.”
 

Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL)

Although research on better biomarkers is ongoing, “there’s also a recognition that some of the protein markers that have been around for a while, if used appropriately, can provide value,” Nerenz said. These include, among others, NGAL.

NGAL works well in pediatric patients without other comorbidities, but it has been less useful in adult patients because it is also released by other cell types. However, recent research suggests it shows promise in patients with both cirrhosis and AKI.

There are three main causes of AKI in cirrhosis, Nerenz explained. The first is prerenal and can be primarily addressed through rehydration.

“When these patients come in, clinicians won’t do anything right away other than provide fluids. If creatinine improves over the 48-hour period of fluid replenishment, then the patient is sent home because there really isn’t extensive damage to the kidneys.”

If improvement isn’t seen after those 48 hours, then it could be one of two things: Hepatorenal syndrome or acute tubular necrosis. Patients with hepatorenal syndrome are candidates for terlipressin, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for this indication in 2022 after it displayed notable efficacy in a double-blind study.

“You don’t want to give terlipressin to just anybody because if the issue is not a diminished blood supply to the kidney, it’s not going to help, and comes with some serious side effects, such as respiratory failure,” Nerenz explained. “Having a biomarker that can distinguish between hepatorenal syndrome and acute tubular necrosis really helps clinicians confidently identify which patients are good candidates for this drug. Right now, we’re flying blind to a certain extent, basically using clinical intuition.”

Currently, the determination of NGAL is FDA cleared only for pediatric use. One way hospitals have dealt with that is by making the test in their own labs, using appropriate reagents, validation, and so forth. These tests are then safe for use in adults but haven’t gone through the FDA approval process.

However, the FDA’s recent announcement stating that the agency should oversee lab-developed tests has made this situation unclear, Nerenz said.

“At this point, we don’t know if there’s still an opportunity to take the NGAL test (or any other cleared biomarker) and validate it for use in a different patient population. Many hospital labs simply don’t have the resources to take these tests through the whole FDA approval process.”
 

A New Biomarker for AIN?

Meanwhile, research is also moving forward on a better biomarker for AIN, which is also under the AKI umbrella.

“It’s important to diagnose AIN because it has a very specific treatment,” Dennis G. Moledina, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization.

“AIN is caused by a bunch of different medications, such as proton pump inhibitors, cancer drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antibiotics, so when someone has this condition, you have to stop potentially life-saving medications and give unnecessary and potentially toxic immunosuppressive drugs, like prednisone,” he said. “If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’re stopping vital drugs and giving immunosuppression for no reason. And if you miss the diagnosis, AIN can lead to permanent chronic kidney disease.”

“Right now, the only way to diagnose AIN is to do a kidney biopsy, which is risky because it can often lead to significant bleeding,” he said. “Some people can’t undergo a biopsy because they’re on medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and they can’t be stopped.”

Furthermore, he noted, “the longer a patient takes a drug that’s causing AIN without getting a diagnosis, the less the chances of recovery because the longer you let this kidney inflammation go on, the more fibrosis and permanent damage develops. So it is important to diagnose it as early as possible, and that’s again why we have a real need for a noninvasive biomarker that can be tested rapidly.”

Moledina and colleagues have been working on identifying a suitable biomarker for close to 10 years, the latest example of which is their 2023 study validating urinary CXCL9 as just such a marker.

“We’re most excited about CXCL9 because it’s already used to diagnose some other diseases in plasma,” Moledina said. “We think that we can convince labs to test it in urine.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mark Canney, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, wrote that the CXCL9 study findings “are exciting because they provide a road map of where diagnostics can get to for this common, yet poorly identified and treated, cause of kidney damage. The need for a different approach can be readily identified from the fact that clinicians’ gestalt for diagnosing AIN was almost tantamount to tossing a coin (AUC, 0.57). CXCL9 alone outperformed not only the clinician’s prebiopsy suspicion but also an existing diagnostic model and other candidate biomarkers both in the discovery and external validation cohorts.”

Like NGAL, CXCL9 will have to go through the FDA approval process before it can be used for AIN. Therefore, it may be a few years before it can become routinely available, Moledina said.

Nevertheless, Nerenz added, “I think the next steps for AKI are probably continuing on this path of context-dependent, selective biomarker use. I anticipate that we’ll see ongoing development in this space, just expanding to a wider variety of clinical scenarios.”

Nerenz declared receiving research funding from Abbott Labs for evaluation of an AKI biomarker. Moledina is a co-inventor on a pending patent, “Methods and Systems for Diagnosis of Acute Interstitial Nephritis”; a cofounder of the diagnostics company Predict AIN; and a consultant for Biohaven.

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.

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.

The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.

In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.

High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
 

Pharmacists Most Effective

Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.

In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.

Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.

Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
 

Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk

The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.

“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.

“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.

Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”

Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
 

Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful

In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.

The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.

“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”

Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
 

Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’

Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”

He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.

Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”

Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”

Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.

“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”

Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
 

Collaboration Yes, Independent No

Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”

The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”

DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.

As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
 

Community Health Workers Key

He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.

“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.

Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”

Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.

And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”

Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.

“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”

Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.

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

Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.

The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.

In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.

High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
 

Pharmacists Most Effective

Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.

In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.

Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.

Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
 

Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk

The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.

“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.

“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.

Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”

Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
 

Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful

In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.

The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.

“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”

Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
 

Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’

Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”

He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.

Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”

Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”

Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.

“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”

Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
 

Collaboration Yes, Independent No

Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”

The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”

DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.

As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
 

Community Health Workers Key

He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.

“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.

Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”

Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.

And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”

Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.

“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”

Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.

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

Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.

The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.

In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.

High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
 

Pharmacists Most Effective

Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.

In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.

Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.

Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
 

Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk

The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.

“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.

“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.

Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”

Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
 

Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful

In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.

The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.

“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”

Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
 

Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’

Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”

He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.

Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”

Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”

Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.

“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”

Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
 

Collaboration Yes, Independent No

Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”

The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”

DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.

As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
 

Community Health Workers Key

He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.

“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.

Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”

Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.

And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”

Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.

“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”

Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

TOPLINE:

Deprescribing antihypertensive medications is associated with a 12% lower likelihood of cognitive decline in older nursing home residents, a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
• Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
• The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
• The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.

TAKEAWAY:

• Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
• Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
• At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

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:

Deprescribing antihypertensive medications is associated with a 12% lower likelihood of cognitive decline in older nursing home residents, a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
• Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
• The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
• The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.

TAKEAWAY:

• Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
• Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
• At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

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:

Deprescribing antihypertensive medications is associated with a 12% lower likelihood of cognitive decline in older nursing home residents, a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
• Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
• The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
• The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.

TAKEAWAY:

• Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
• Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
• At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

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.

Coffee and tea are among the plants that are highest in caffeine. Their use as beverages makes caffeine the most consumed psychoactive agent in the world. Coffee is commonly used to increase alertness and work productivity. Synthetic caffeine is added to soft drinks, energy drinks, and products intended to reduce fatigue or promote weight loss.

The caffeine content varies with the type of drink: It is high in coffee, energy drinks, and caffeine tablets; intermediate in tea; and low in soft drinks. Coffee is the predominant source of the caffeine ingested by adults. The evidence for caffeine’s effects on people is ambiguous, and some risks and benefits deserve special attention because of the impact they may have on our health.
 

Characteristics of Caffeine

Caffeine is a methylxanthine that is completely absorbed 45 minutes after ingestion, peaking between 15 minutes and 2 hours. The half-life of caffeine varies according to age. In adults, it is 2.5-4.5 hours; in newborns, 80 hours; in children older than 6 months, it remains stable over time with respect to weight. Smoking accelerates caffeine metabolism by reducing the half-life by 50%. Oral contraceptives, however, double caffeine’s half-life. Caffeine metabolism is reduced during pregnancy (it is greater in the first trimester), with a half-life of more than 15 hours. Caffeine clearance can be slowed by several classes of drugs (eg, quinolones, cardiovascular drugs, bronchodilators, and antidepressants) that increase its half-life because they are metabolized by the same liver enzymes.

Caffeine passes the blood-brain barrier and, having an adenosine-like structure, inhibits adenosine’s effects by binding to adenosine receptors. In the brain, caffeine reduces fatigue, increases alertness, reduces reaction times, may reduce the risk for depression, and increases the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treating headaches and other types of pain.
 

Caffeine and Chronic Diseases

The evidence available on the relationship between caffeine and health has several methodological limitations. Observations of the acute effects of caffeine may not reflect long-term effects because tolerance to caffeine’s effects may develop over time. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles are confounding factors in epidemiological studies of caffeine intake. In addition, the estimate of the amount and frequency of caffeine intake is often inaccurate because it is mainly based on self-assessment systems. Finally, prospective studies of caffeine consumption are mainly based on coffee and tea consumption, but it is unclear how much the observed outcomes can be translated to intake of other beverages such as energy drinks.

Considering the very high prevalence of arterial hypertension worldwide (31.1% of adults), many questions have been raised about the influence of coffee consumption on blood pressure (BP) and the risk for arterial hypertension. Administration of 200-300 mg caffeine is shown to induce a mean increase of 8.1 mm Hg systolic BP and 5.7 mm Hg diastolic BP. The increase is observed in the first hour after caffeine intake and lasts no longer than 3 hours.

Yet, the moderate and usual consumption of coffee does not increase, but may even reduce, the risk of developing high BP. In contrast, occasional coffee consumption can have hypertensive effects, and moderate and usual consumption in patients with high BP does not appear to increase the risk for uncontrolled BP and can reduce the risk for death from any cause. The inverse association between coffee consumption and hypertension risk was confirmed in a review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies.

With respect to lipid metabolism, cholesterol levels may increase after caffeine consumption because of cafestol. Concentrations of cafestol are high in unfiltered coffee, intermediate in espresso and moka pot coffee, and negligible in instant or filtered coffee. Studies on the impact of coffee on lipid levels have led to inconsistent results, however. Data have shown that people who drink more coffee have higher triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Other data have shown that caffeine promotes LDL receptor expression and clearance of LDL cholesterol.

Experimental and cohort studies have not shown an association between coffee consumption and atrial fibrillation (AF). In fact, evidence suggests that coffee consumption tends to reduce the risk for AF in a dose-response relationship. Similarly, coffee consumption is not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events in the general population or among patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The Coffee and Real-Time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy study evaluated the acute effects of coffee consumption on cardiac ectopy using wearable sensors with continuous recording. It did not demonstrate any increase in daily premature atrial contractions with coffee consumption, compared with abstaining from caffeine. 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, a study performed in Japan showed that coffee consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The results suggested a dose-response relationship, and drinking coffee and green tea appeared to reduce mortality risk further. The results were not generalizable, however, because of the study population’s ethnic homogeneity.
 

Dose and Toxicity

Caffeine at high doses (> 400 mg daily) and in susceptible patients can induce anxiety, but the effects of caffeine on sleep and anxiety can differ from patient to patient. This variation reflects differences in caffeine metabolism rate and adenosine receptor gene variants.

High caffeine intake can stimulate diuresis, but without causing damaging effects on hydration when taking moderate doses of caffeine (≤ 400 mg daily) for long periods. Stopping caffeine suddenly, in a regular consumer, can lead to withdrawal symptoms such as headache, asthenia, decreased attention, depressed mood, and flu-like symptoms.

The toxic effects of caffeine occur with intake > 1.2 g. A dose of 10-14 g is considered fatal. Caffeine overdose is rare when considering traditional methods of intake (coffee and tea) because 70-100 cups of coffee should be sufficient for caffeine poisoning. Severe events can occur following the use of caffeine tablets or as energy drinks for the following reasons:

• The episodic consumption of caffeine does not allow for tolerance to develop.
• Young people are more vulnerable to the effects of caffeine.
• Caffeine has a synergistic effect in combination with other components in energy drinks.
• Taking caffeine in combination with alcohol or intense exertion causes serious, even fatal, outcomes.

Products Containing Caffeine

Evidence supports the relationship between high consumption (approximately 1 L) of energy drinks with a caffeine content of 320 mg and short-term cardiovascular adverse events, such as increased BP, QT-segment prolongation corrected for heart rate, and palpitations. These tests prompt the recommendation to avoid consuming these beverages in high quantities and in association with alcohol.

Weight loss products generally contain caffeine coupled with herbal extracts that are expected to improve fat metabolism, lipolysis, and oxidation. These products, because of their easy availability, presumed benefits, and high caffeine concentration, may be more susceptible to misuse because they can be taken in larger portions than recommended. The combination of multiple ingredients, concentrated amounts of caffeine, and excessive consumption increases the likelihood of adverse effects.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Coffee and tea are among the plants that are highest in caffeine. Their use as beverages makes caffeine the most consumed psychoactive agent in the world. Coffee is commonly used to increase alertness and work productivity. Synthetic caffeine is added to soft drinks, energy drinks, and products intended to reduce fatigue or promote weight loss.

The caffeine content varies with the type of drink: It is high in coffee, energy drinks, and caffeine tablets; intermediate in tea; and low in soft drinks. Coffee is the predominant source of the caffeine ingested by adults. The evidence for caffeine’s effects on people is ambiguous, and some risks and benefits deserve special attention because of the impact they may have on our health.
 

Characteristics of Caffeine

Caffeine is a methylxanthine that is completely absorbed 45 minutes after ingestion, peaking between 15 minutes and 2 hours. The half-life of caffeine varies according to age. In adults, it is 2.5-4.5 hours; in newborns, 80 hours; in children older than 6 months, it remains stable over time with respect to weight. Smoking accelerates caffeine metabolism by reducing the half-life by 50%. Oral contraceptives, however, double caffeine’s half-life. Caffeine metabolism is reduced during pregnancy (it is greater in the first trimester), with a half-life of more than 15 hours. Caffeine clearance can be slowed by several classes of drugs (eg, quinolones, cardiovascular drugs, bronchodilators, and antidepressants) that increase its half-life because they are metabolized by the same liver enzymes.

Caffeine passes the blood-brain barrier and, having an adenosine-like structure, inhibits adenosine’s effects by binding to adenosine receptors. In the brain, caffeine reduces fatigue, increases alertness, reduces reaction times, may reduce the risk for depression, and increases the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treating headaches and other types of pain.
 

Caffeine and Chronic Diseases

The evidence available on the relationship between caffeine and health has several methodological limitations. Observations of the acute effects of caffeine may not reflect long-term effects because tolerance to caffeine’s effects may develop over time. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles are confounding factors in epidemiological studies of caffeine intake. In addition, the estimate of the amount and frequency of caffeine intake is often inaccurate because it is mainly based on self-assessment systems. Finally, prospective studies of caffeine consumption are mainly based on coffee and tea consumption, but it is unclear how much the observed outcomes can be translated to intake of other beverages such as energy drinks.

Considering the very high prevalence of arterial hypertension worldwide (31.1% of adults), many questions have been raised about the influence of coffee consumption on blood pressure (BP) and the risk for arterial hypertension. Administration of 200-300 mg caffeine is shown to induce a mean increase of 8.1 mm Hg systolic BP and 5.7 mm Hg diastolic BP. The increase is observed in the first hour after caffeine intake and lasts no longer than 3 hours.

Yet, the moderate and usual consumption of coffee does not increase, but may even reduce, the risk of developing high BP. In contrast, occasional coffee consumption can have hypertensive effects, and moderate and usual consumption in patients with high BP does not appear to increase the risk for uncontrolled BP and can reduce the risk for death from any cause. The inverse association between coffee consumption and hypertension risk was confirmed in a review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies.

With respect to lipid metabolism, cholesterol levels may increase after caffeine consumption because of cafestol. Concentrations of cafestol are high in unfiltered coffee, intermediate in espresso and moka pot coffee, and negligible in instant or filtered coffee. Studies on the impact of coffee on lipid levels have led to inconsistent results, however. Data have shown that people who drink more coffee have higher triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Other data have shown that caffeine promotes LDL receptor expression and clearance of LDL cholesterol.

Experimental and cohort studies have not shown an association between coffee consumption and atrial fibrillation (AF). In fact, evidence suggests that coffee consumption tends to reduce the risk for AF in a dose-response relationship. Similarly, coffee consumption is not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events in the general population or among patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The Coffee and Real-Time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy study evaluated the acute effects of coffee consumption on cardiac ectopy using wearable sensors with continuous recording. It did not demonstrate any increase in daily premature atrial contractions with coffee consumption, compared with abstaining from caffeine. 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, a study performed in Japan showed that coffee consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The results suggested a dose-response relationship, and drinking coffee and green tea appeared to reduce mortality risk further. The results were not generalizable, however, because of the study population’s ethnic homogeneity.
 

Dose and Toxicity

Caffeine at high doses (> 400 mg daily) and in susceptible patients can induce anxiety, but the effects of caffeine on sleep and anxiety can differ from patient to patient. This variation reflects differences in caffeine metabolism rate and adenosine receptor gene variants.

High caffeine intake can stimulate diuresis, but without causing damaging effects on hydration when taking moderate doses of caffeine (≤ 400 mg daily) for long periods. Stopping caffeine suddenly, in a regular consumer, can lead to withdrawal symptoms such as headache, asthenia, decreased attention, depressed mood, and flu-like symptoms.

The toxic effects of caffeine occur with intake > 1.2 g. A dose of 10-14 g is considered fatal. Caffeine overdose is rare when considering traditional methods of intake (coffee and tea) because 70-100 cups of coffee should be sufficient for caffeine poisoning. Severe events can occur following the use of caffeine tablets or as energy drinks for the following reasons:

• The episodic consumption of caffeine does not allow for tolerance to develop.
• Young people are more vulnerable to the effects of caffeine.
• Caffeine has a synergistic effect in combination with other components in energy drinks.
• Taking caffeine in combination with alcohol or intense exertion causes serious, even fatal, outcomes.

Products Containing Caffeine

Evidence supports the relationship between high consumption (approximately 1 L) of energy drinks with a caffeine content of 320 mg and short-term cardiovascular adverse events, such as increased BP, QT-segment prolongation corrected for heart rate, and palpitations. These tests prompt the recommendation to avoid consuming these beverages in high quantities and in association with alcohol.

Weight loss products generally contain caffeine coupled with herbal extracts that are expected to improve fat metabolism, lipolysis, and oxidation. These products, because of their easy availability, presumed benefits, and high caffeine concentration, may be more susceptible to misuse because they can be taken in larger portions than recommended. The combination of multiple ingredients, concentrated amounts of caffeine, and excessive consumption increases the likelihood of adverse effects.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Coffee and tea are among the plants that are highest in caffeine. Their use as beverages makes caffeine the most consumed psychoactive agent in the world. Coffee is commonly used to increase alertness and work productivity. Synthetic caffeine is added to soft drinks, energy drinks, and products intended to reduce fatigue or promote weight loss.

The caffeine content varies with the type of drink: It is high in coffee, energy drinks, and caffeine tablets; intermediate in tea; and low in soft drinks. Coffee is the predominant source of the caffeine ingested by adults. The evidence for caffeine’s effects on people is ambiguous, and some risks and benefits deserve special attention because of the impact they may have on our health.
 

Characteristics of Caffeine

Caffeine is a methylxanthine that is completely absorbed 45 minutes after ingestion, peaking between 15 minutes and 2 hours. The half-life of caffeine varies according to age. In adults, it is 2.5-4.5 hours; in newborns, 80 hours; in children older than 6 months, it remains stable over time with respect to weight. Smoking accelerates caffeine metabolism by reducing the half-life by 50%. Oral contraceptives, however, double caffeine’s half-life. Caffeine metabolism is reduced during pregnancy (it is greater in the first trimester), with a half-life of more than 15 hours. Caffeine clearance can be slowed by several classes of drugs (eg, quinolones, cardiovascular drugs, bronchodilators, and antidepressants) that increase its half-life because they are metabolized by the same liver enzymes.

Caffeine passes the blood-brain barrier and, having an adenosine-like structure, inhibits adenosine’s effects by binding to adenosine receptors. In the brain, caffeine reduces fatigue, increases alertness, reduces reaction times, may reduce the risk for depression, and increases the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treating headaches and other types of pain.
 

Caffeine and Chronic Diseases

The evidence available on the relationship between caffeine and health has several methodological limitations. Observations of the acute effects of caffeine may not reflect long-term effects because tolerance to caffeine’s effects may develop over time. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles are confounding factors in epidemiological studies of caffeine intake. In addition, the estimate of the amount and frequency of caffeine intake is often inaccurate because it is mainly based on self-assessment systems. Finally, prospective studies of caffeine consumption are mainly based on coffee and tea consumption, but it is unclear how much the observed outcomes can be translated to intake of other beverages such as energy drinks.

Considering the very high prevalence of arterial hypertension worldwide (31.1% of adults), many questions have been raised about the influence of coffee consumption on blood pressure (BP) and the risk for arterial hypertension. Administration of 200-300 mg caffeine is shown to induce a mean increase of 8.1 mm Hg systolic BP and 5.7 mm Hg diastolic BP. The increase is observed in the first hour after caffeine intake and lasts no longer than 3 hours.

Yet, the moderate and usual consumption of coffee does not increase, but may even reduce, the risk of developing high BP. In contrast, occasional coffee consumption can have hypertensive effects, and moderate and usual consumption in patients with high BP does not appear to increase the risk for uncontrolled BP and can reduce the risk for death from any cause. The inverse association between coffee consumption and hypertension risk was confirmed in a review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies.

With respect to lipid metabolism, cholesterol levels may increase after caffeine consumption because of cafestol. Concentrations of cafestol are high in unfiltered coffee, intermediate in espresso and moka pot coffee, and negligible in instant or filtered coffee. Studies on the impact of coffee on lipid levels have led to inconsistent results, however. Data have shown that people who drink more coffee have higher triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Other data have shown that caffeine promotes LDL receptor expression and clearance of LDL cholesterol.

Experimental and cohort studies have not shown an association between coffee consumption and atrial fibrillation (AF). In fact, evidence suggests that coffee consumption tends to reduce the risk for AF in a dose-response relationship. Similarly, coffee consumption is not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events in the general population or among patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The Coffee and Real-Time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy study evaluated the acute effects of coffee consumption on cardiac ectopy using wearable sensors with continuous recording. It did not demonstrate any increase in daily premature atrial contractions with coffee consumption, compared with abstaining from caffeine. 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, a study performed in Japan showed that coffee consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The results suggested a dose-response relationship, and drinking coffee and green tea appeared to reduce mortality risk further. The results were not generalizable, however, because of the study population’s ethnic homogeneity.
 

Dose and Toxicity

Caffeine at high doses (> 400 mg daily) and in susceptible patients can induce anxiety, but the effects of caffeine on sleep and anxiety can differ from patient to patient. This variation reflects differences in caffeine metabolism rate and adenosine receptor gene variants.

High caffeine intake can stimulate diuresis, but without causing damaging effects on hydration when taking moderate doses of caffeine (≤ 400 mg daily) for long periods. Stopping caffeine suddenly, in a regular consumer, can lead to withdrawal symptoms such as headache, asthenia, decreased attention, depressed mood, and flu-like symptoms.

The toxic effects of caffeine occur with intake > 1.2 g. A dose of 10-14 g is considered fatal. Caffeine overdose is rare when considering traditional methods of intake (coffee and tea) because 70-100 cups of coffee should be sufficient for caffeine poisoning. Severe events can occur following the use of caffeine tablets or as energy drinks for the following reasons:

• The episodic consumption of caffeine does not allow for tolerance to develop.
• Young people are more vulnerable to the effects of caffeine.
• Caffeine has a synergistic effect in combination with other components in energy drinks.
• Taking caffeine in combination with alcohol or intense exertion causes serious, even fatal, outcomes.

Products Containing Caffeine

Evidence supports the relationship between high consumption (approximately 1 L) of energy drinks with a caffeine content of 320 mg and short-term cardiovascular adverse events, such as increased BP, QT-segment prolongation corrected for heart rate, and palpitations. These tests prompt the recommendation to avoid consuming these beverages in high quantities and in association with alcohol.

Weight loss products generally contain caffeine coupled with herbal extracts that are expected to improve fat metabolism, lipolysis, and oxidation. These products, because of their easy availability, presumed benefits, and high caffeine concentration, may be more susceptible to misuse because they can be taken in larger portions than recommended. The combination of multiple ingredients, concentrated amounts of caffeine, and excessive consumption increases the likelihood of adverse effects.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

BOSTON — The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is associated with reduced short- and long-term mortality among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), according to results from a new propensity score–matched analysis.

“There are a lot of new studies that show benefits [of SGLT2 inhibitors] in heart failure, in [chronic kidney disease], and of course, in diabetes. Group one pulmonary hypertension includes not only the inflammatory cascades but also fibrotic and neurovascularization, and all these different parts of the pathophysiology are linked to each other. There are studies that show that SGLT2 inhibitors can have an impact on inflammatory cascades, fibrosis, and vascular remodeling in general. Together, all this data triggered this idea for me, and that’s when I decided to conduct further studies,” said Irakli Lemonjava, MD, who presented the study at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The researchers drew data on 125,634 adult patients from the TriNetX database who were diagnosed with PAH after January 1, 2013. They used propensity score matching to account for demographic characteristics and 10 organ system disorders to compare patients with exposure to SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin; n = 6238) with those without such exposure (n = 6243).

At 1 year, 8.1% of patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors had died, compared with 15.5% of patients not taking SGLT2 inhibitors (risk reduction [RR], 0.52; P < .0001). The values were 13% and 22.5% (RR, 0.579; P < .0001) at 3 years and 14.6% and 25% at 5 years (RR, 0.583; P < .0001).

The study generated discussion during the Q&A period following the talk. One audience member asked if the group was able to access patients both inside and outside the United States. “Because I wonder if access to GLP2 inhibitors is actually a surrogate marker for access to other medications,” the questioner said.

Although the finding is intriguing, it shouldn’t change clinical practice, according to Lemonjava. “I don’t think we can make any changes based on what I shared today. Our purpose was to trigger the question. I think the numbers are so impressive that it will trigger more studies. I think if in the future it’s demonstrated by clinical trials that [SGLT2 inhibitors are beneficial], it will not be a problem to prescribe for someone with pulmonary arterial hypertension because they do not have many side effects,” he said. Lemonjava is a resident physician at Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital, Philadelphia.

Session co-moderator said Syed Rehan Quadery, MD, praised the study but emphasized the remaining uncertainty. “It’s an excellent proof of concept study. More trials need to [be done] on it, and we don’t understand the mechanism of action in which it improves survival in patients with pulmonary artery hypertension. The majority of the patients with pulmonary hypertension are much older and they have comorbidities, including cardiovascular risk factors, and maybe that is one of the ways in which this drug helps. Plus, there are multiple mechanisms in which it may be working, including anti-inflammatory as well as antiproliferative mechanisms through inhibiting the Notch-3 signaling pathway,” said Quadery, who is a consultant respiratory physician at National Pulmonary Hypertension Unit, Dublin, Ireland.

Quadery and his co-moderator Zeenat Safdar, MD, both noted that SGLT2 inhibitors have already been demonstrated to improve outcomes in heart failure. “[SGLT2 inhibition] improves survival, it decreases hospitalization, it improves morbidity and mortality. There are a lot of things that can be shown in different [animal or in vitro] models. In humans, we actually don’t know exactly how it works, but we know that it does. If it works in left heart failure, it also [could] work in right heart failure,” said Safdar, who is the director of the Houston Methodist Lung Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston.

The study was independently supported. Lemonjava, Quadery, and Safdar reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is associated with reduced short- and long-term mortality among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), according to results from a new propensity score–matched analysis.

“There are a lot of new studies that show benefits [of SGLT2 inhibitors] in heart failure, in [chronic kidney disease], and of course, in diabetes. Group one pulmonary hypertension includes not only the inflammatory cascades but also fibrotic and neurovascularization, and all these different parts of the pathophysiology are linked to each other. There are studies that show that SGLT2 inhibitors can have an impact on inflammatory cascades, fibrosis, and vascular remodeling in general. Together, all this data triggered this idea for me, and that’s when I decided to conduct further studies,” said Irakli Lemonjava, MD, who presented the study at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The researchers drew data on 125,634 adult patients from the TriNetX database who were diagnosed with PAH after January 1, 2013. They used propensity score matching to account for demographic characteristics and 10 organ system disorders to compare patients with exposure to SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin; n = 6238) with those without such exposure (n = 6243).

At 1 year, 8.1% of patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors had died, compared with 15.5% of patients not taking SGLT2 inhibitors (risk reduction [RR], 0.52; P < .0001). The values were 13% and 22.5% (RR, 0.579; P < .0001) at 3 years and 14.6% and 25% at 5 years (RR, 0.583; P < .0001).

The study generated discussion during the Q&A period following the talk. One audience member asked if the group was able to access patients both inside and outside the United States. “Because I wonder if access to GLP2 inhibitors is actually a surrogate marker for access to other medications,” the questioner said.

Although the finding is intriguing, it shouldn’t change clinical practice, according to Lemonjava. “I don’t think we can make any changes based on what I shared today. Our purpose was to trigger the question. I think the numbers are so impressive that it will trigger more studies. I think if in the future it’s demonstrated by clinical trials that [SGLT2 inhibitors are beneficial], it will not be a problem to prescribe for someone with pulmonary arterial hypertension because they do not have many side effects,” he said. Lemonjava is a resident physician at Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital, Philadelphia.

Session co-moderator said Syed Rehan Quadery, MD, praised the study but emphasized the remaining uncertainty. “It’s an excellent proof of concept study. More trials need to [be done] on it, and we don’t understand the mechanism of action in which it improves survival in patients with pulmonary artery hypertension. The majority of the patients with pulmonary hypertension are much older and they have comorbidities, including cardiovascular risk factors, and maybe that is one of the ways in which this drug helps. Plus, there are multiple mechanisms in which it may be working, including anti-inflammatory as well as antiproliferative mechanisms through inhibiting the Notch-3 signaling pathway,” said Quadery, who is a consultant respiratory physician at National Pulmonary Hypertension Unit, Dublin, Ireland.

Quadery and his co-moderator Zeenat Safdar, MD, both noted that SGLT2 inhibitors have already been demonstrated to improve outcomes in heart failure. “[SGLT2 inhibition] improves survival, it decreases hospitalization, it improves morbidity and mortality. There are a lot of things that can be shown in different [animal or in vitro] models. In humans, we actually don’t know exactly how it works, but we know that it does. If it works in left heart failure, it also [could] work in right heart failure,” said Safdar, who is the director of the Houston Methodist Lung Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston.

The study was independently supported. Lemonjava, Quadery, and Safdar reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is associated with reduced short- and long-term mortality among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), according to results from a new propensity score–matched analysis.

“There are a lot of new studies that show benefits [of SGLT2 inhibitors] in heart failure, in [chronic kidney disease], and of course, in diabetes. Group one pulmonary hypertension includes not only the inflammatory cascades but also fibrotic and neurovascularization, and all these different parts of the pathophysiology are linked to each other. There are studies that show that SGLT2 inhibitors can have an impact on inflammatory cascades, fibrosis, and vascular remodeling in general. Together, all this data triggered this idea for me, and that’s when I decided to conduct further studies,” said Irakli Lemonjava, MD, who presented the study at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The researchers drew data on 125,634 adult patients from the TriNetX database who were diagnosed with PAH after January 1, 2013. They used propensity score matching to account for demographic characteristics and 10 organ system disorders to compare patients with exposure to SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin; n = 6238) with those without such exposure (n = 6243).

At 1 year, 8.1% of patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors had died, compared with 15.5% of patients not taking SGLT2 inhibitors (risk reduction [RR], 0.52; P < .0001). The values were 13% and 22.5% (RR, 0.579; P < .0001) at 3 years and 14.6% and 25% at 5 years (RR, 0.583; P < .0001).

The study generated discussion during the Q&A period following the talk. One audience member asked if the group was able to access patients both inside and outside the United States. “Because I wonder if access to GLP2 inhibitors is actually a surrogate marker for access to other medications,” the questioner said.

Although the finding is intriguing, it shouldn’t change clinical practice, according to Lemonjava. “I don’t think we can make any changes based on what I shared today. Our purpose was to trigger the question. I think the numbers are so impressive that it will trigger more studies. I think if in the future it’s demonstrated by clinical trials that [SGLT2 inhibitors are beneficial], it will not be a problem to prescribe for someone with pulmonary arterial hypertension because they do not have many side effects,” he said. Lemonjava is a resident physician at Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital, Philadelphia.

Session co-moderator said Syed Rehan Quadery, MD, praised the study but emphasized the remaining uncertainty. “It’s an excellent proof of concept study. More trials need to [be done] on it, and we don’t understand the mechanism of action in which it improves survival in patients with pulmonary artery hypertension. The majority of the patients with pulmonary hypertension are much older and they have comorbidities, including cardiovascular risk factors, and maybe that is one of the ways in which this drug helps. Plus, there are multiple mechanisms in which it may be working, including anti-inflammatory as well as antiproliferative mechanisms through inhibiting the Notch-3 signaling pathway,” said Quadery, who is a consultant respiratory physician at National Pulmonary Hypertension Unit, Dublin, Ireland.

Quadery and his co-moderator Zeenat Safdar, MD, both noted that SGLT2 inhibitors have already been demonstrated to improve outcomes in heart failure. “[SGLT2 inhibition] improves survival, it decreases hospitalization, it improves morbidity and mortality. There are a lot of things that can be shown in different [animal or in vitro] models. In humans, we actually don’t know exactly how it works, but we know that it does. If it works in left heart failure, it also [could] work in right heart failure,” said Safdar, who is the director of the Houston Methodist Lung Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston.

The study was independently supported. Lemonjava, Quadery, and Safdar reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Common arm positions for blood pressure (BP) measurements that stray from guidelines — arm in lap or hanging at side — led to substantial overestimation of hypertension in a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Guidelines for BP measurement recommend arm support on a desk with the midcuff at heart level. Overestimating BP can lead to unnecessary patient follow-up and overtreatment. Hypertension affects approximately 86 million  adults in the United States and more than 1 billion people globally.

This study has widespread implications given the number of settings where BP checks are performed and the growth in patients taking their own BP readings at home, said Donald DiPette, MD, who was not part of the research and was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. DiPette is the Distinguished Health Sciences Professor at the School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
 

Substantial Overestimation

In the crossover, randomized trial of 133 adults, Hairong Liu, MHS, with the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues found that supporting the arm on the lap overestimated systolic BP (SBP) by 3.9 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) by 4.0 mm Hg. When the arm hung at the side, readings overestimated SBP by 6.5 mm Hg and DBP by 4.4 mm Hg, with consistent results across subgroups.

Participants were randomly assigned to get a series of BP measurements with the arm positioned in three ways: Supported on a desk; hand supported on lap; and arm unsupported at the side. Because BP readings are intrinsically variable, all had a fourth set of BP measurements with the arm supported on a desk. 

Participants’ mean age was 57 years; 48 participants (36%) had SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg; and 55 participants (41%) had a body mass index of ≥ 30.

Two researcher team staff members conducted all the measurements. They received standardized training and completed a certification test in BP measurement, administered by a study author. Measurements were taken from 9 am to 6 pm using a validated oscillometric BP device (ProBP 2000 Digital Blood Pressure Device, Welch Allyn). Only the right arms were used unless a specific condition was present, such as an open sore.
 

Study’s Design Sets It Apart

The authors wrote that the design of the study set this work apart. “Earlier studies have shown that unsupported or arm positioning below heart level can overestimate SBP by 4-23 mm Hg and DBP by 3-12 mm Hg.” But the strength of this study is the randomized, crossover design, “which is in contrast to the majority of published studies where the order of arm positions before seated BP measurement was not randomized or not clearly described.”

Dr. DiPette, who says, “I’ve given my career to understanding hypertension,” praised the design as well.

Randomization of which position patients were assigned to first was important because the first reading is often higher than subsequent readings, Dr. DiPette said.

“That makes sense as the person acclimatizes to the environment,” he explained. BP can even vary within the same reading, he noted.
 

Incorrect Readings for Many Reasons

Incorrect measures are common given the number of settings and number of providers and patients taking blood pressure even with training, certification in the method, and educational materials.

“We recommend taking a blood pressure in any possible setting you can. Because it’s that critical,” he said. “Most of the time it’s taken in busy primary care settings. The pressures are there. Most times it’s only one reading. It’s the medical environment of today.”

He noted that although this study finds overestimation, different arm positions not recommended by guidelines could potentially result in underestimation of hypertension. 

“I liken the BP measurement to a laboratory test that has clear treatment implications. We would want the BP measurement to have the same rigorous accuracy as a blood test or radiologic machine,” he said. 

Dr. DiPette said more education is needed for patients as well as providers as patients may be monitoring their own BP at home. Patients should also know they can ask for a measurement to be repeated, know the correct arm position recommended by guidelines, and the implications of incorrect readings, he said.

This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation. 

Ms. Liu reported grants from Resolve to Save Lives outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Kowa, RhythmX AI, and Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed World Health Organization guidelines on hypertension.

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

Common arm positions for blood pressure (BP) measurements that stray from guidelines — arm in lap or hanging at side — led to substantial overestimation of hypertension in a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Guidelines for BP measurement recommend arm support on a desk with the midcuff at heart level. Overestimating BP can lead to unnecessary patient follow-up and overtreatment. Hypertension affects approximately 86 million  adults in the United States and more than 1 billion people globally.

This study has widespread implications given the number of settings where BP checks are performed and the growth in patients taking their own BP readings at home, said Donald DiPette, MD, who was not part of the research and was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. DiPette is the Distinguished Health Sciences Professor at the School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
 

Substantial Overestimation

In the crossover, randomized trial of 133 adults, Hairong Liu, MHS, with the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues found that supporting the arm on the lap overestimated systolic BP (SBP) by 3.9 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) by 4.0 mm Hg. When the arm hung at the side, readings overestimated SBP by 6.5 mm Hg and DBP by 4.4 mm Hg, with consistent results across subgroups.

Participants were randomly assigned to get a series of BP measurements with the arm positioned in three ways: Supported on a desk; hand supported on lap; and arm unsupported at the side. Because BP readings are intrinsically variable, all had a fourth set of BP measurements with the arm supported on a desk. 

Participants’ mean age was 57 years; 48 participants (36%) had SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg; and 55 participants (41%) had a body mass index of ≥ 30.

Two researcher team staff members conducted all the measurements. They received standardized training and completed a certification test in BP measurement, administered by a study author. Measurements were taken from 9 am to 6 pm using a validated oscillometric BP device (ProBP 2000 Digital Blood Pressure Device, Welch Allyn). Only the right arms were used unless a specific condition was present, such as an open sore.
 

Study’s Design Sets It Apart

The authors wrote that the design of the study set this work apart. “Earlier studies have shown that unsupported or arm positioning below heart level can overestimate SBP by 4-23 mm Hg and DBP by 3-12 mm Hg.” But the strength of this study is the randomized, crossover design, “which is in contrast to the majority of published studies where the order of arm positions before seated BP measurement was not randomized or not clearly described.”

Dr. DiPette, who says, “I’ve given my career to understanding hypertension,” praised the design as well.

Randomization of which position patients were assigned to first was important because the first reading is often higher than subsequent readings, Dr. DiPette said.

“That makes sense as the person acclimatizes to the environment,” he explained. BP can even vary within the same reading, he noted.
 

Incorrect Readings for Many Reasons

Incorrect measures are common given the number of settings and number of providers and patients taking blood pressure even with training, certification in the method, and educational materials.

“We recommend taking a blood pressure in any possible setting you can. Because it’s that critical,” he said. “Most of the time it’s taken in busy primary care settings. The pressures are there. Most times it’s only one reading. It’s the medical environment of today.”

He noted that although this study finds overestimation, different arm positions not recommended by guidelines could potentially result in underestimation of hypertension. 

“I liken the BP measurement to a laboratory test that has clear treatment implications. We would want the BP measurement to have the same rigorous accuracy as a blood test or radiologic machine,” he said. 

Dr. DiPette said more education is needed for patients as well as providers as patients may be monitoring their own BP at home. Patients should also know they can ask for a measurement to be repeated, know the correct arm position recommended by guidelines, and the implications of incorrect readings, he said.

This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation. 

Ms. Liu reported grants from Resolve to Save Lives outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Kowa, RhythmX AI, and Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed World Health Organization guidelines on hypertension.

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

Common arm positions for blood pressure (BP) measurements that stray from guidelines — arm in lap or hanging at side — led to substantial overestimation of hypertension in a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Guidelines for BP measurement recommend arm support on a desk with the midcuff at heart level. Overestimating BP can lead to unnecessary patient follow-up and overtreatment. Hypertension affects approximately 86 million  adults in the United States and more than 1 billion people globally.

This study has widespread implications given the number of settings where BP checks are performed and the growth in patients taking their own BP readings at home, said Donald DiPette, MD, who was not part of the research and was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. DiPette is the Distinguished Health Sciences Professor at the School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
 

Substantial Overestimation

In the crossover, randomized trial of 133 adults, Hairong Liu, MHS, with the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues found that supporting the arm on the lap overestimated systolic BP (SBP) by 3.9 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) by 4.0 mm Hg. When the arm hung at the side, readings overestimated SBP by 6.5 mm Hg and DBP by 4.4 mm Hg, with consistent results across subgroups.

Participants were randomly assigned to get a series of BP measurements with the arm positioned in three ways: Supported on a desk; hand supported on lap; and arm unsupported at the side. Because BP readings are intrinsically variable, all had a fourth set of BP measurements with the arm supported on a desk. 

Participants’ mean age was 57 years; 48 participants (36%) had SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg; and 55 participants (41%) had a body mass index of ≥ 30.

Two researcher team staff members conducted all the measurements. They received standardized training and completed a certification test in BP measurement, administered by a study author. Measurements were taken from 9 am to 6 pm using a validated oscillometric BP device (ProBP 2000 Digital Blood Pressure Device, Welch Allyn). Only the right arms were used unless a specific condition was present, such as an open sore.
 

Study’s Design Sets It Apart

The authors wrote that the design of the study set this work apart. “Earlier studies have shown that unsupported or arm positioning below heart level can overestimate SBP by 4-23 mm Hg and DBP by 3-12 mm Hg.” But the strength of this study is the randomized, crossover design, “which is in contrast to the majority of published studies where the order of arm positions before seated BP measurement was not randomized or not clearly described.”

Dr. DiPette, who says, “I’ve given my career to understanding hypertension,” praised the design as well.

Randomization of which position patients were assigned to first was important because the first reading is often higher than subsequent readings, Dr. DiPette said.

“That makes sense as the person acclimatizes to the environment,” he explained. BP can even vary within the same reading, he noted.
 

Incorrect Readings for Many Reasons

Incorrect measures are common given the number of settings and number of providers and patients taking blood pressure even with training, certification in the method, and educational materials.

“We recommend taking a blood pressure in any possible setting you can. Because it’s that critical,” he said. “Most of the time it’s taken in busy primary care settings. The pressures are there. Most times it’s only one reading. It’s the medical environment of today.”

He noted that although this study finds overestimation, different arm positions not recommended by guidelines could potentially result in underestimation of hypertension. 

“I liken the BP measurement to a laboratory test that has clear treatment implications. We would want the BP measurement to have the same rigorous accuracy as a blood test or radiologic machine,” he said. 

Dr. DiPette said more education is needed for patients as well as providers as patients may be monitoring their own BP at home. Patients should also know they can ask for a measurement to be repeated, know the correct arm position recommended by guidelines, and the implications of incorrect readings, he said.

This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation. 

Ms. Liu reported grants from Resolve to Save Lives outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Kowa, RhythmX AI, and Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed World Health Organization guidelines on hypertension.

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

LONDON — Single-pill combinations that include three or four antihypertensive medications are the way forward for the management of patients with elevated blood pressure, according to experts evaluating the new approach.

This multidrug strategy — in which ultralow-dose triple combinations can be used as a starting treatment and four full-dose combinations can be used to treat resistant hypertension — has shown an impressive ability to lower blood pressure in several new studies.

But will it catch on as a routine treatment recommendation in current practice?

Studies of treatment strategies that involve an ultralow quarter dose of three drugs that lower blood pressure and then escalation to a half-dose triple combination and then to a full-dose triple combination, all given as a single pill, were presented at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2024. Another strategy presented involves a four-drug full-dose combination in patients with resistant hypertension.
 

Start With Low Doses of Three Drugs

The triple-combination pill contains telmisartan (an angiotensin blocker), amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker), and indapamide (a diuretic). The three medications are used at three doses: Quarter, half, and standard.

“The idea is to start treatment with a little bit of the three main drug classes instead of the full dose of one drug and then to increase the triple-combination doses as required to get to blood pressure goal,” said Anthony Rodgers, PhD, from the team at The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, that is developing this triple-combination product.

“Using three different mechanisms right from the beginning covers all the bases and leads to improved blood pressure reduction while just using very small doses of each agent. This represents a completely new approach that could transform the management of hypertension,” he reported.

Single-pill triple-combination antihypertensive formulations exist already, but the component drugs are all at standard doses. Such combinations were designed to improve adherence in patients with hard-to-control blood pressure who need more than two full-dose medications, he explained.

“We are suggesting a completely different concept using much lower doses of the triple combination right from the beginning of treatment,” Dr. Rodgers explained. “Convenience and adherence will be an added advantage, but there’s more to it than that. It’s about combining the different mechanisms of three separate drug classes to get a better antihypertensive effect and being able to do this right from the start of treatment in patients with mildly elevated blood pressure, as well as those with higher levels.”

Proof-of-concept trials of this approach have been conducted, but no commercial low-dose triple-combination product has been available.

The George Institute is now developing such a product — through George Medicines, its commercial arm — with the aim of bringing the triple-combination pill to market in both high- and low-income countries. An approval submission has been filed in the United States.

Dr. Rodgers presented two studies that assessed the triple combination. One showed that the quarter dose reduced blood pressure significantly better than placebo in patients with mildly elevated blood pressure. The second showed that half and standard doses of the three medications were more effective at lowering blood pressure than three dual combinations at the same doses.
 

The VERONICA Trial

The triple combination was also assessed in the VERONICA study, which showed that among Black adults in Nigeria with uncontrolled hypertension, blood pressure was lower and control was better with the low-dose triple-combination pill than with standard care, and tolerability was good.

In VERONICA, recently published in JAMA, 300 patients with a mean baseline blood pressure of 151/97 mm Hg at home and 156/97 mm Hg in the clinic were randomly assigned to receive the triple-combination pill or standard care.

In the triple-combination group, patients started with the quarter-dose pill, then accelerated, as necessary, to the half-dose and standard-dose pills.

In the standard care group, patients started with amlodipine (5 mg), which was stepped up at monthly intervals so patients could achieve a target blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg as follows: Amlodipine (5 mg) plus losartan (50 mg); then amlodipine (10 mg) plus losartan (100 mg); then amlodipine (10 mg), losartan (100 mg), plus hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg); and finally referral to a specialist if the target blood pressure was still not achieved.

At month 6, mean home systolic blood pressure was, on average, 31 mm Hg lower in the triple-combination group and 26 mm Hg lower in the standard care group (adjusted difference, −5.8 mm Hg; P < .001).

More patients in the triple-combination group than in the standard care group achieved clinic blood pressure control, defined as blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg (82% vs 72%), and more patients achieved home blood pressure control, defined as blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg (62% vs 28%).

No participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and adverse events of special interest were reported by just 2% and 3% patients in the triple-combination and standard care groups, respectively.

At month 6, however, more participants in the triple-combination group than in the standard care group had serum potassium levels < 3.5 mmol/L (34% vs 18%), although fewer participants in both the groups had potassium levels < 3.0 mmol/L (10% vs 5%).

Hypokalemia may be the consequence of low dietary potassium intake in Africa, and co-administration with potassium-enriched salt substitution should be evaluated, said Dike Ojji, MBBS, PhD, University of Abuja, Nigeria, who was the lead investigator of VERONICA.

“These findings have broad clinical and public health implications, given that improved hypertension control is a priority in Africa and globally. The results underscore the need for combination therapy to be the cornerstone of effective treatment regimens,” Dr. Ojji said.
 

Missed Targets

“It has taken a long time for the penny to drop as to why the existing antihypertensive treatment paradigm does not work so well,” Dr. Rodgers pointed out. “What tends to happen in clinical practice is that people start on one drug and blood pressure falls a bit, then no further action is taken. But this is not usually enough to get to target. With our approach of using three drugs at low doses straight away, we can often get the blood pressure controlled to target much more quickly with one tablet.”

Low doses of the triple-combination pill should also have a favorable adverse-effect profile and fewer drug interactions, as these issues are generally seen much more frequently with higher doses of drugs, he explained.

This low-dose triple-combination approach could help manage the current epidemic of hypertension and cardiometabolic disease, said Pam Taub, MD, director of preventive cardiology at UC San Diego Health System.

“We are in a new era of cardiometabolic disease, and one of the fundamental drivers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is hypertension, which is prevalent in patients with diabetes, in those with obesity, and is a contributor to chronic kidney disease,” she said.

“We really need to be addressing hypertension very early to prevent this end-organ damage, but because hypertension tends to occur alongside multiple other comorbidities, patients are often on many different medications and are overwhelmed by the burden of polypharmacy.”

Dr. Taub described this triple-combination approach as “looking at hypertension treatment through a new lens.”

“We’ve always been taught to maximize the dose of one agent before we go to a new agent,” she said. “These studies are fundamentally challenging that paradigm. From a pathophysiological and mechanistic perspective, we are seeing that lower doses of different medications can really harness some unique synergistic mechanisms, which can be beneficial for patients.”

But not all experts are convinced that this approach will be a popular option in all countries.

Although this approach makes sense, in that the different agents work synergistically to give a better antihypertensive effect, many physicians could be uncomfortable with the idea of giving multiple medications straight off as the first step of treatment, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle.

If the patient develops a side effect, it will not be clear which medication is causing it, making it difficult to know which one to stop, he pointed out.

“These studies confirm that a low-dose multidrug-combination pill is effective at lowering blood pressure, but we already have previous studies showing this,” he added. “The issue is how we translate this into patient care. It would be great if we could get people to use it, but I think concerns from both clinicians and patients about identifying the source of any side effects may be a stumbling block.”

The approach is more likely to be adopted in low- to middle-income countries, where there is limited access to healthcare and where the population-wide control of blood pressure makes sense, said Dr. Yang.

Most current guidelines now recommend initiating therapy with two agents, ideally, as a single-pill combination product. “We have finally acknowledged that the vast majority of patients need two drugs. That’s a good starting point. This low-dose triple combination could be an interesting new approach,” said Neil Poulter, MD, professor of preventive cardiovascular medicine at Imperial College London, England.

This approach is in line with the idea that single-pill combinations are the way forward for hypertension therapy, he added.

“The triple combination is attractive, in that you are never quite sure which particular mechanism is driving an individual’s elevated blood pressure, so if you can target three different mechanisms at the same time, you’ve got more chance of a good hit,” Dr. Poulter said.

“The VERONICA trial showed a very good result on lowering BP using this low-dose triple combination as a starting point and increasing quickly to single-pill combinations of triple half doses, then triple full doses, as required. But I think we need more evidence on how this compares to current practice than just this one study in Africa to make this an acceptable routine approach on a global level,” he said.
 

QUADRO: Four-Drug Combo in Resistant Hypertension

Another scenario in which single-pill antihypertensive combinations could be particularly useful is at the other end of the spectrum: The treatment of patients with resistant hypertension.

The QUADRO study showed that a single pill containing perindopril, indapamide, amlodipine, and bisoprolol is better at lowering blood pressure than the triple combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine.

The primary endpoint — office sitting systolic blood pressure at 16 weeks — was 8 mm Hg lower with the quadruple combination than with the triple combination. And mean ambulatory 24-hour systolic blood pressure was 7.5 mm Hg lower with the four-drug combination.

This was the first study of a single-pill quadruple combination in patients with resistant hypertension, which is a “difficult-to-treat condition demanding a high number of pills with not enough safe and practical options,” said Stefano Taddei, MD, from the University of Pisa, Italy, when he presented the study at the ESC meeting.

Using “four well-established drugs in a single-combination pill may improve adherence and should be an innovative solution for resistant and difficult-to-treat hypertensive patients,” he said.

Nonadherence is a big problem in patients with resistant hypertension. “It is really difficult to get patients to take three or four antihypertensive agents along with all the other medications they have for other comorbidities,” Dr. Taub pointed out. “We really need to think about combination formulations that reduce the pill burden for our patients.”

Around 10% patients with hypertension may require a fourth drug, so a four-drug single-pill combination therefore makes good sense, said Dr. Poulter.

But the choice of the fourth drug is the subject of debate. The PATHWAY trial showed spironolactone to be the most effective fourth agent, but it can cause side effects, such as gynecomastia and hyperkalemia.

“The beta-blocker in the four-drug combination product used in the QUADRO study may not be as effective as spironolactone at lowering blood pressure,” Dr. Poulter explained, noting that beta-blockers have known side effects. However, “they are often already recommended for patients with very common comorbidities, such as arrhythmias, history of MI, heart failure, angina. In that regard, it makes sense to have a beta-blocker in there.”

The four-drug combination used in the QUADRO study led to a bigger reduction — by 8 mm Hg — than the three-drug combination. “That’s pretty good. I thought this was a very useful and interesting study,” he said.

There could be a role for a four-drug combination product in resistant hypertension. “Whatever we can do to improve adherence and reduce blood pressure is good thing,” said Dr. Yang.

However, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (such as spironolactone) might be better as the fourth drug; that is what is recommended in the resistant hypertension algorithm.
 

Lower Blood Pressure, Better Outcomes

“What we are seeing in these trials is that across a wide spectrum of patients with hypertension or resistant hypertension, combination pills are superior to standard practice for BP lowering, and that will lead to improved outcomes,” said Dr. Taub.

“For years, such single-pill combinations have been viewed as ‘bad medicine’ in hypertension,” Dr. Poulter added. “That is clearly not the case, as these studies are showing. And single-pill combination therapies are used extensively in practically every other area of medicine. We are starting to accept them now in the blood pressure community, and I think the use of triple and quadruple combinations, as in these studies, has a real logic to it. But for this approach to be useful, these single-pill combinations must be made available, cheaply, across the world, especially in low- and middle-income countries where hypertension rates are a particular problem.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Single-pill combinations that include three or four antihypertensive medications are the way forward for the management of patients with elevated blood pressure, according to experts evaluating the new approach.

This multidrug strategy — in which ultralow-dose triple combinations can be used as a starting treatment and four full-dose combinations can be used to treat resistant hypertension — has shown an impressive ability to lower blood pressure in several new studies.

But will it catch on as a routine treatment recommendation in current practice?

Studies of treatment strategies that involve an ultralow quarter dose of three drugs that lower blood pressure and then escalation to a half-dose triple combination and then to a full-dose triple combination, all given as a single pill, were presented at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2024. Another strategy presented involves a four-drug full-dose combination in patients with resistant hypertension.
 

Start With Low Doses of Three Drugs

The triple-combination pill contains telmisartan (an angiotensin blocker), amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker), and indapamide (a diuretic). The three medications are used at three doses: Quarter, half, and standard.

“The idea is to start treatment with a little bit of the three main drug classes instead of the full dose of one drug and then to increase the triple-combination doses as required to get to blood pressure goal,” said Anthony Rodgers, PhD, from the team at The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, that is developing this triple-combination product.

“Using three different mechanisms right from the beginning covers all the bases and leads to improved blood pressure reduction while just using very small doses of each agent. This represents a completely new approach that could transform the management of hypertension,” he reported.

Single-pill triple-combination antihypertensive formulations exist already, but the component drugs are all at standard doses. Such combinations were designed to improve adherence in patients with hard-to-control blood pressure who need more than two full-dose medications, he explained.

“We are suggesting a completely different concept using much lower doses of the triple combination right from the beginning of treatment,” Dr. Rodgers explained. “Convenience and adherence will be an added advantage, but there’s more to it than that. It’s about combining the different mechanisms of three separate drug classes to get a better antihypertensive effect and being able to do this right from the start of treatment in patients with mildly elevated blood pressure, as well as those with higher levels.”

Proof-of-concept trials of this approach have been conducted, but no commercial low-dose triple-combination product has been available.

The George Institute is now developing such a product — through George Medicines, its commercial arm — with the aim of bringing the triple-combination pill to market in both high- and low-income countries. An approval submission has been filed in the United States.

Dr. Rodgers presented two studies that assessed the triple combination. One showed that the quarter dose reduced blood pressure significantly better than placebo in patients with mildly elevated blood pressure. The second showed that half and standard doses of the three medications were more effective at lowering blood pressure than three dual combinations at the same doses.
 

The VERONICA Trial

The triple combination was also assessed in the VERONICA study, which showed that among Black adults in Nigeria with uncontrolled hypertension, blood pressure was lower and control was better with the low-dose triple-combination pill than with standard care, and tolerability was good.

In VERONICA, recently published in JAMA, 300 patients with a mean baseline blood pressure of 151/97 mm Hg at home and 156/97 mm Hg in the clinic were randomly assigned to receive the triple-combination pill or standard care.

In the triple-combination group, patients started with the quarter-dose pill, then accelerated, as necessary, to the half-dose and standard-dose pills.

In the standard care group, patients started with amlodipine (5 mg), which was stepped up at monthly intervals so patients could achieve a target blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg as follows: Amlodipine (5 mg) plus losartan (50 mg); then amlodipine (10 mg) plus losartan (100 mg); then amlodipine (10 mg), losartan (100 mg), plus hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg); and finally referral to a specialist if the target blood pressure was still not achieved.

At month 6, mean home systolic blood pressure was, on average, 31 mm Hg lower in the triple-combination group and 26 mm Hg lower in the standard care group (adjusted difference, −5.8 mm Hg; P < .001).

More patients in the triple-combination group than in the standard care group achieved clinic blood pressure control, defined as blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg (82% vs 72%), and more patients achieved home blood pressure control, defined as blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg (62% vs 28%).

No participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and adverse events of special interest were reported by just 2% and 3% patients in the triple-combination and standard care groups, respectively.

At month 6, however, more participants in the triple-combination group than in the standard care group had serum potassium levels < 3.5 mmol/L (34% vs 18%), although fewer participants in both the groups had potassium levels < 3.0 mmol/L (10% vs 5%).

Hypokalemia may be the consequence of low dietary potassium intake in Africa, and co-administration with potassium-enriched salt substitution should be evaluated, said Dike Ojji, MBBS, PhD, University of Abuja, Nigeria, who was the lead investigator of VERONICA.

“These findings have broad clinical and public health implications, given that improved hypertension control is a priority in Africa and globally. The results underscore the need for combination therapy to be the cornerstone of effective treatment regimens,” Dr. Ojji said.
 

Missed Targets

“It has taken a long time for the penny to drop as to why the existing antihypertensive treatment paradigm does not work so well,” Dr. Rodgers pointed out. “What tends to happen in clinical practice is that people start on one drug and blood pressure falls a bit, then no further action is taken. But this is not usually enough to get to target. With our approach of using three drugs at low doses straight away, we can often get the blood pressure controlled to target much more quickly with one tablet.”

Low doses of the triple-combination pill should also have a favorable adverse-effect profile and fewer drug interactions, as these issues are generally seen much more frequently with higher doses of drugs, he explained.

This low-dose triple-combination approach could help manage the current epidemic of hypertension and cardiometabolic disease, said Pam Taub, MD, director of preventive cardiology at UC San Diego Health System.

“We are in a new era of cardiometabolic disease, and one of the fundamental drivers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is hypertension, which is prevalent in patients with diabetes, in those with obesity, and is a contributor to chronic kidney disease,” she said.

“We really need to be addressing hypertension very early to prevent this end-organ damage, but because hypertension tends to occur alongside multiple other comorbidities, patients are often on many different medications and are overwhelmed by the burden of polypharmacy.”

Dr. Taub described this triple-combination approach as “looking at hypertension treatment through a new lens.”

“We’ve always been taught to maximize the dose of one agent before we go to a new agent,” she said. “These studies are fundamentally challenging that paradigm. From a pathophysiological and mechanistic perspective, we are seeing that lower doses of different medications can really harness some unique synergistic mechanisms, which can be beneficial for patients.”

But not all experts are convinced that this approach will be a popular option in all countries.

Although this approach makes sense, in that the different agents work synergistically to give a better antihypertensive effect, many physicians could be uncomfortable with the idea of giving multiple medications straight off as the first step of treatment, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle.

If the patient develops a side effect, it will not be clear which medication is causing it, making it difficult to know which one to stop, he pointed out.

“These studies confirm that a low-dose multidrug-combination pill is effective at lowering blood pressure, but we already have previous studies showing this,” he added. “The issue is how we translate this into patient care. It would be great if we could get people to use it, but I think concerns from both clinicians and patients about identifying the source of any side effects may be a stumbling block.”

The approach is more likely to be adopted in low- to middle-income countries, where there is limited access to healthcare and where the population-wide control of blood pressure makes sense, said Dr. Yang.

Most current guidelines now recommend initiating therapy with two agents, ideally, as a single-pill combination product. “We have finally acknowledged that the vast majority of patients need two drugs. That’s a good starting point. This low-dose triple combination could be an interesting new approach,” said Neil Poulter, MD, professor of preventive cardiovascular medicine at Imperial College London, England.

This approach is in line with the idea that single-pill combinations are the way forward for hypertension therapy, he added.

“The triple combination is attractive, in that you are never quite sure which particular mechanism is driving an individual’s elevated blood pressure, so if you can target three different mechanisms at the same time, you’ve got more chance of a good hit,” Dr. Poulter said.

“The VERONICA trial showed a very good result on lowering BP using this low-dose triple combination as a starting point and increasing quickly to single-pill combinations of triple half doses, then triple full doses, as required. But I think we need more evidence on how this compares to current practice than just this one study in Africa to make this an acceptable routine approach on a global level,” he said.
 

QUADRO: Four-Drug Combo in Resistant Hypertension

Another scenario in which single-pill antihypertensive combinations could be particularly useful is at the other end of the spectrum: The treatment of patients with resistant hypertension.

The QUADRO study showed that a single pill containing perindopril, indapamide, amlodipine, and bisoprolol is better at lowering blood pressure than the triple combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine.

The primary endpoint — office sitting systolic blood pressure at 16 weeks — was 8 mm Hg lower with the quadruple combination than with the triple combination. And mean ambulatory 24-hour systolic blood pressure was 7.5 mm Hg lower with the four-drug combination.

This was the first study of a single-pill quadruple combination in patients with resistant hypertension, which is a “difficult-to-treat condition demanding a high number of pills with not enough safe and practical options,” said Stefano Taddei, MD, from the University of Pisa, Italy, when he presented the study at the ESC meeting.

Using “four well-established drugs in a single-combination pill may improve adherence and should be an innovative solution for resistant and difficult-to-treat hypertensive patients,” he said.

Nonadherence is a big problem in patients with resistant hypertension. “It is really difficult to get patients to take three or four antihypertensive agents along with all the other medications they have for other comorbidities,” Dr. Taub pointed out. “We really need to think about combination formulations that reduce the pill burden for our patients.”

Around 10% patients with hypertension may require a fourth drug, so a four-drug single-pill combination therefore makes good sense, said Dr. Poulter.

But the choice of the fourth drug is the subject of debate. The PATHWAY trial showed spironolactone to be the most effective fourth agent, but it can cause side effects, such as gynecomastia and hyperkalemia.

“The beta-blocker in the four-drug combination product used in the QUADRO study may not be as effective as spironolactone at lowering blood pressure,” Dr. Poulter explained, noting that beta-blockers have known side effects. However, “they are often already recommended for patients with very common comorbidities, such as arrhythmias, history of MI, heart failure, angina. In that regard, it makes sense to have a beta-blocker in there.”

The four-drug combination used in the QUADRO study led to a bigger reduction — by 8 mm Hg — than the three-drug combination. “That’s pretty good. I thought this was a very useful and interesting study,” he said.

There could be a role for a four-drug combination product in resistant hypertension. “Whatever we can do to improve adherence and reduce blood pressure is good thing,” said Dr. Yang.

However, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (such as spironolactone) might be better as the fourth drug; that is what is recommended in the resistant hypertension algorithm.
 

Lower Blood Pressure, Better Outcomes

“What we are seeing in these trials is that across a wide spectrum of patients with hypertension or resistant hypertension, combination pills are superior to standard practice for BP lowering, and that will lead to improved outcomes,” said Dr. Taub.

“For years, such single-pill combinations have been viewed as ‘bad medicine’ in hypertension,” Dr. Poulter added. “That is clearly not the case, as these studies are showing. And single-pill combination therapies are used extensively in practically every other area of medicine. We are starting to accept them now in the blood pressure community, and I think the use of triple and quadruple combinations, as in these studies, has a real logic to it. But for this approach to be useful, these single-pill combinations must be made available, cheaply, across the world, especially in low- and middle-income countries where hypertension rates are a particular problem.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Single-pill combinations that include three or four antihypertensive medications are the way forward for the management of patients with elevated blood pressure, according to experts evaluating the new approach.

This multidrug strategy — in which ultralow-dose triple combinations can be used as a starting treatment and four full-dose combinations can be used to treat resistant hypertension — has shown an impressive ability to lower blood pressure in several new studies.

But will it catch on as a routine treatment recommendation in current practice?

Studies of treatment strategies that involve an ultralow quarter dose of three drugs that lower blood pressure and then escalation to a half-dose triple combination and then to a full-dose triple combination, all given as a single pill, were presented at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2024. Another strategy presented involves a four-drug full-dose combination in patients with resistant hypertension.
 

Start With Low Doses of Three Drugs

The triple-combination pill contains telmisartan (an angiotensin blocker), amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker), and indapamide (a diuretic). The three medications are used at three doses: Quarter, half, and standard.

“The idea is to start treatment with a little bit of the three main drug classes instead of the full dose of one drug and then to increase the triple-combination doses as required to get to blood pressure goal,” said Anthony Rodgers, PhD, from the team at The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, that is developing this triple-combination product.

“Using three different mechanisms right from the beginning covers all the bases and leads to improved blood pressure reduction while just using very small doses of each agent. This represents a completely new approach that could transform the management of hypertension,” he reported.

Single-pill triple-combination antihypertensive formulations exist already, but the component drugs are all at standard doses. Such combinations were designed to improve adherence in patients with hard-to-control blood pressure who need more than two full-dose medications, he explained.

“We are suggesting a completely different concept using much lower doses of the triple combination right from the beginning of treatment,” Dr. Rodgers explained. “Convenience and adherence will be an added advantage, but there’s more to it than that. It’s about combining the different mechanisms of three separate drug classes to get a better antihypertensive effect and being able to do this right from the start of treatment in patients with mildly elevated blood pressure, as well as those with higher levels.”

Proof-of-concept trials of this approach have been conducted, but no commercial low-dose triple-combination product has been available.

The George Institute is now developing such a product — through George Medicines, its commercial arm — with the aim of bringing the triple-combination pill to market in both high- and low-income countries. An approval submission has been filed in the United States.

Dr. Rodgers presented two studies that assessed the triple combination. One showed that the quarter dose reduced blood pressure significantly better than placebo in patients with mildly elevated blood pressure. The second showed that half and standard doses of the three medications were more effective at lowering blood pressure than three dual combinations at the same doses.
 

The VERONICA Trial

The triple combination was also assessed in the VERONICA study, which showed that among Black adults in Nigeria with uncontrolled hypertension, blood pressure was lower and control was better with the low-dose triple-combination pill than with standard care, and tolerability was good.

In VERONICA, recently published in JAMA, 300 patients with a mean baseline blood pressure of 151/97 mm Hg at home and 156/97 mm Hg in the clinic were randomly assigned to receive the triple-combination pill or standard care.

In the triple-combination group, patients started with the quarter-dose pill, then accelerated, as necessary, to the half-dose and standard-dose pills.

In the standard care group, patients started with amlodipine (5 mg), which was stepped up at monthly intervals so patients could achieve a target blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg as follows: Amlodipine (5 mg) plus losartan (50 mg); then amlodipine (10 mg) plus losartan (100 mg); then amlodipine (10 mg), losartan (100 mg), plus hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg); and finally referral to a specialist if the target blood pressure was still not achieved.

At month 6, mean home systolic blood pressure was, on average, 31 mm Hg lower in the triple-combination group and 26 mm Hg lower in the standard care group (adjusted difference, −5.8 mm Hg; P < .001).

More patients in the triple-combination group than in the standard care group achieved clinic blood pressure control, defined as blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg (82% vs 72%), and more patients achieved home blood pressure control, defined as blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg (62% vs 28%).

No participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and adverse events of special interest were reported by just 2% and 3% patients in the triple-combination and standard care groups, respectively.

At month 6, however, more participants in the triple-combination group than in the standard care group had serum potassium levels < 3.5 mmol/L (34% vs 18%), although fewer participants in both the groups had potassium levels < 3.0 mmol/L (10% vs 5%).

Hypokalemia may be the consequence of low dietary potassium intake in Africa, and co-administration with potassium-enriched salt substitution should be evaluated, said Dike Ojji, MBBS, PhD, University of Abuja, Nigeria, who was the lead investigator of VERONICA.

“These findings have broad clinical and public health implications, given that improved hypertension control is a priority in Africa and globally. The results underscore the need for combination therapy to be the cornerstone of effective treatment regimens,” Dr. Ojji said.
 

Missed Targets

“It has taken a long time for the penny to drop as to why the existing antihypertensive treatment paradigm does not work so well,” Dr. Rodgers pointed out. “What tends to happen in clinical practice is that people start on one drug and blood pressure falls a bit, then no further action is taken. But this is not usually enough to get to target. With our approach of using three drugs at low doses straight away, we can often get the blood pressure controlled to target much more quickly with one tablet.”

Low doses of the triple-combination pill should also have a favorable adverse-effect profile and fewer drug interactions, as these issues are generally seen much more frequently with higher doses of drugs, he explained.

This low-dose triple-combination approach could help manage the current epidemic of hypertension and cardiometabolic disease, said Pam Taub, MD, director of preventive cardiology at UC San Diego Health System.

“We are in a new era of cardiometabolic disease, and one of the fundamental drivers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is hypertension, which is prevalent in patients with diabetes, in those with obesity, and is a contributor to chronic kidney disease,” she said.

“We really need to be addressing hypertension very early to prevent this end-organ damage, but because hypertension tends to occur alongside multiple other comorbidities, patients are often on many different medications and are overwhelmed by the burden of polypharmacy.”

Dr. Taub described this triple-combination approach as “looking at hypertension treatment through a new lens.”

“We’ve always been taught to maximize the dose of one agent before we go to a new agent,” she said. “These studies are fundamentally challenging that paradigm. From a pathophysiological and mechanistic perspective, we are seeing that lower doses of different medications can really harness some unique synergistic mechanisms, which can be beneficial for patients.”

But not all experts are convinced that this approach will be a popular option in all countries.

Although this approach makes sense, in that the different agents work synergistically to give a better antihypertensive effect, many physicians could be uncomfortable with the idea of giving multiple medications straight off as the first step of treatment, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle.

If the patient develops a side effect, it will not be clear which medication is causing it, making it difficult to know which one to stop, he pointed out.

“These studies confirm that a low-dose multidrug-combination pill is effective at lowering blood pressure, but we already have previous studies showing this,” he added. “The issue is how we translate this into patient care. It would be great if we could get people to use it, but I think concerns from both clinicians and patients about identifying the source of any side effects may be a stumbling block.”

The approach is more likely to be adopted in low- to middle-income countries, where there is limited access to healthcare and where the population-wide control of blood pressure makes sense, said Dr. Yang.

Most current guidelines now recommend initiating therapy with two agents, ideally, as a single-pill combination product. “We have finally acknowledged that the vast majority of patients need two drugs. That’s a good starting point. This low-dose triple combination could be an interesting new approach,” said Neil Poulter, MD, professor of preventive cardiovascular medicine at Imperial College London, England.

This approach is in line with the idea that single-pill combinations are the way forward for hypertension therapy, he added.

“The triple combination is attractive, in that you are never quite sure which particular mechanism is driving an individual’s elevated blood pressure, so if you can target three different mechanisms at the same time, you’ve got more chance of a good hit,” Dr. Poulter said.

“The VERONICA trial showed a very good result on lowering BP using this low-dose triple combination as a starting point and increasing quickly to single-pill combinations of triple half doses, then triple full doses, as required. But I think we need more evidence on how this compares to current practice than just this one study in Africa to make this an acceptable routine approach on a global level,” he said.
 

QUADRO: Four-Drug Combo in Resistant Hypertension

Another scenario in which single-pill antihypertensive combinations could be particularly useful is at the other end of the spectrum: The treatment of patients with resistant hypertension.

The QUADRO study showed that a single pill containing perindopril, indapamide, amlodipine, and bisoprolol is better at lowering blood pressure than the triple combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine.

The primary endpoint — office sitting systolic blood pressure at 16 weeks — was 8 mm Hg lower with the quadruple combination than with the triple combination. And mean ambulatory 24-hour systolic blood pressure was 7.5 mm Hg lower with the four-drug combination.

This was the first study of a single-pill quadruple combination in patients with resistant hypertension, which is a “difficult-to-treat condition demanding a high number of pills with not enough safe and practical options,” said Stefano Taddei, MD, from the University of Pisa, Italy, when he presented the study at the ESC meeting.

Using “four well-established drugs in a single-combination pill may improve adherence and should be an innovative solution for resistant and difficult-to-treat hypertensive patients,” he said.

Nonadherence is a big problem in patients with resistant hypertension. “It is really difficult to get patients to take three or four antihypertensive agents along with all the other medications they have for other comorbidities,” Dr. Taub pointed out. “We really need to think about combination formulations that reduce the pill burden for our patients.”

Around 10% patients with hypertension may require a fourth drug, so a four-drug single-pill combination therefore makes good sense, said Dr. Poulter.

But the choice of the fourth drug is the subject of debate. The PATHWAY trial showed spironolactone to be the most effective fourth agent, but it can cause side effects, such as gynecomastia and hyperkalemia.

“The beta-blocker in the four-drug combination product used in the QUADRO study may not be as effective as spironolactone at lowering blood pressure,” Dr. Poulter explained, noting that beta-blockers have known side effects. However, “they are often already recommended for patients with very common comorbidities, such as arrhythmias, history of MI, heart failure, angina. In that regard, it makes sense to have a beta-blocker in there.”

The four-drug combination used in the QUADRO study led to a bigger reduction — by 8 mm Hg — than the three-drug combination. “That’s pretty good. I thought this was a very useful and interesting study,” he said.

There could be a role for a four-drug combination product in resistant hypertension. “Whatever we can do to improve adherence and reduce blood pressure is good thing,” said Dr. Yang.

However, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (such as spironolactone) might be better as the fourth drug; that is what is recommended in the resistant hypertension algorithm.
 

Lower Blood Pressure, Better Outcomes

“What we are seeing in these trials is that across a wide spectrum of patients with hypertension or resistant hypertension, combination pills are superior to standard practice for BP lowering, and that will lead to improved outcomes,” said Dr. Taub.

“For years, such single-pill combinations have been viewed as ‘bad medicine’ in hypertension,” Dr. Poulter added. “That is clearly not the case, as these studies are showing. And single-pill combination therapies are used extensively in practically every other area of medicine. We are starting to accept them now in the blood pressure community, and I think the use of triple and quadruple combinations, as in these studies, has a real logic to it. But for this approach to be useful, these single-pill combinations must be made available, cheaply, across the world, especially in low- and middle-income countries where hypertension rates are a particular problem.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.