User login
Frequent visits to green spaces linked to lower use of some meds
Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.
In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.
Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.
The growing scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of nature exposure is likely to increase the availability of high-quality green spaces in urban environments and promote the use of these spaces, lead author Anu W. Turunen, PhD, from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland, told this news organization.
This might be one way to improve health and well-being among city dwellers, Dr. Turunen added.
The findings were published online in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Nature exposure a timely topic
Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.
“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.
In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.
Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.
In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers.
Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.
They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”
They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.
In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.
Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.
Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.
However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.
For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.
For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.
For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.
The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.
“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.
“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature
There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.
Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.
In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.
Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.
“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.
“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”
The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.
In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.
Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.
The growing scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of nature exposure is likely to increase the availability of high-quality green spaces in urban environments and promote the use of these spaces, lead author Anu W. Turunen, PhD, from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland, told this news organization.
This might be one way to improve health and well-being among city dwellers, Dr. Turunen added.
The findings were published online in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Nature exposure a timely topic
Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.
“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.
In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.
Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.
In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers.
Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.
They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”
They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.
In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.
Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.
Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.
However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.
For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.
For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.
For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.
The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.
“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.
“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature
There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.
Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.
In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.
Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.
“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.
“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”
The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.
In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.
Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.
The growing scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of nature exposure is likely to increase the availability of high-quality green spaces in urban environments and promote the use of these spaces, lead author Anu W. Turunen, PhD, from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland, told this news organization.
This might be one way to improve health and well-being among city dwellers, Dr. Turunen added.
The findings were published online in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Nature exposure a timely topic
Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.
“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.
In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.
Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.
In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers.
Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.
They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”
They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.
In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.
Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.
Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.
However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.
For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.
For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.
For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.
The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.
“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.
“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature
There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.
Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.
In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.
Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.
“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.
“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”
The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new blood pressure target in primary care
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.
Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.
Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.
The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.
The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.
Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.
The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.
So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.
AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.
The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.
In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.
Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.
Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.
Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.
Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.
The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.
The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.
Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.
The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.
So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.
AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.
The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.
In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.
Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.
Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.
Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.
Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.
The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.
The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.
Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.
The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.
So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.
AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.
The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.
In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.
Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.
Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.
CV deaths jumped in 2020, reflecting pandemic toll
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Angioedema risk jumps when switching HF meds
New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).
But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.
Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.
The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.
A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.
The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A rare complication, but ...
Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.
But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.
The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”
Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.
But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”
Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.
Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’
Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.
But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).
Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).
Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).
But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).
The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.
For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”
Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).
But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.
Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.
The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.
A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.
The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A rare complication, but ...
Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.
But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.
The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”
Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.
But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”
Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.
Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’
Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.
But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).
Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).
Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).
But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).
The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.
For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”
Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).
But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.
Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.
The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.
A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.
The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A rare complication, but ...
Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.
But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.
The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”
Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.
But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”
Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.
Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’
Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.
But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).
Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).
Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).
But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).
The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.
For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”
Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Is preeclampsia a cardiovascular time bomb for mothers?
Women who experience preeclampsia during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth as pregnant women who did not, according to a new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. The risks are especially high in the first decade after giving birth, the researchers found.
Preeclampsia is the onset of high blood pressure after the 20th week of pregnancy combined with signs of organ damage, such as excess protein in the urine. It can occur in up to 8% of pregnancies, and the association between preeclampsia and long-term cardiac risks is well-known. But new research suggests these risks appear much earlier in life than expected – as early as age 30 – at a time when women are often not screened for signs of heart trouble
“Targeted interventions cannot wait until women with preeclampsia become eligible for conventional screening programs in middle age,” Sara Hallum, PhD, a coauthor of the study, told this news organization.
Dr. Hallum, who was an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen at the time of the study, and colleagues evaluated the medical histories of more than 1.1 million women in Denmark who became pregnant once or twice between 1978 and 2017. Of this group, 3% had experienced preeclampsia. They compared rates of heart attack and stroke between the two groups over time.
While 1.2% of the entire study population had experienced a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth, 2% of the women with a history of preeclampsia had such an event. Within the first decade after delivery, women with a history of preeclampsia were four times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as other women.
Women aged 30-39 with a history of preeclampsia were nearly five times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as similar-aged women. And if a woman gave birth twice and had preeclampsia only during the second pregnancy, she was at especially high risk for a heart attack, the researchers found.
“Women with a history of preeclampsia should be monitored routinely for modifiable risk factors, particularly for increased blood pressure,” Dr. Hallum said.
The Danish study population is racially homogeneous, so the researchers were not able to distinguish the effects of preeclampsia by racial group. In the United States, strong evidence shows that Black women experience the effects of preeclampsia more than others.
A useful clue to cardiac risk
Ellen Seely, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who specializes in preeclampsia, said physicians are less likely to ask women who have been pregnant if they had experienced preeclampsia than to ask if they smoke or have a family history of heart attacks. As a result, they may miss a looming cardiovascular event, especially in younger women who appear healthy.
“Emerging high blood pressure shouldn’t be ignored” in a seemingly healthy young woman, Dr. Seely said, particularly if that woman has divulged a history of preeclampsia. The doctor’s first step should be to verify hypertension, Dr. Seely said. If high blood pressure is evident, immediate treatment – such as encouraging more physical activity and a healthier diet – should follow. Watchful waiting in such cases is inappropriate, she added.
Although the experience of having preeclampsia is unpleasant and scary, Dr. Seely noted that in at least one way it can prove advantageous. Some women who did not experience preeclampsia will end up having a heart attack, sometimes with no prior warning that anything was amiss. At least a history of preeclampsia provides a clue that women should take care of their hearts.
“The patient carries their history with them wherever they go,” Dr. Seely said. For now, this reality often requires women to mention their pregnancy history even if a provider doesn’t ask. Someday, Dr. Seely said, asking about that history will become just as routine for providers as asking about family history.
The study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Hallum and Dr. Seely have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women who experience preeclampsia during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth as pregnant women who did not, according to a new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. The risks are especially high in the first decade after giving birth, the researchers found.
Preeclampsia is the onset of high blood pressure after the 20th week of pregnancy combined with signs of organ damage, such as excess protein in the urine. It can occur in up to 8% of pregnancies, and the association between preeclampsia and long-term cardiac risks is well-known. But new research suggests these risks appear much earlier in life than expected – as early as age 30 – at a time when women are often not screened for signs of heart trouble
“Targeted interventions cannot wait until women with preeclampsia become eligible for conventional screening programs in middle age,” Sara Hallum, PhD, a coauthor of the study, told this news organization.
Dr. Hallum, who was an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen at the time of the study, and colleagues evaluated the medical histories of more than 1.1 million women in Denmark who became pregnant once or twice between 1978 and 2017. Of this group, 3% had experienced preeclampsia. They compared rates of heart attack and stroke between the two groups over time.
While 1.2% of the entire study population had experienced a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth, 2% of the women with a history of preeclampsia had such an event. Within the first decade after delivery, women with a history of preeclampsia were four times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as other women.
Women aged 30-39 with a history of preeclampsia were nearly five times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as similar-aged women. And if a woman gave birth twice and had preeclampsia only during the second pregnancy, she was at especially high risk for a heart attack, the researchers found.
“Women with a history of preeclampsia should be monitored routinely for modifiable risk factors, particularly for increased blood pressure,” Dr. Hallum said.
The Danish study population is racially homogeneous, so the researchers were not able to distinguish the effects of preeclampsia by racial group. In the United States, strong evidence shows that Black women experience the effects of preeclampsia more than others.
A useful clue to cardiac risk
Ellen Seely, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who specializes in preeclampsia, said physicians are less likely to ask women who have been pregnant if they had experienced preeclampsia than to ask if they smoke or have a family history of heart attacks. As a result, they may miss a looming cardiovascular event, especially in younger women who appear healthy.
“Emerging high blood pressure shouldn’t be ignored” in a seemingly healthy young woman, Dr. Seely said, particularly if that woman has divulged a history of preeclampsia. The doctor’s first step should be to verify hypertension, Dr. Seely said. If high blood pressure is evident, immediate treatment – such as encouraging more physical activity and a healthier diet – should follow. Watchful waiting in such cases is inappropriate, she added.
Although the experience of having preeclampsia is unpleasant and scary, Dr. Seely noted that in at least one way it can prove advantageous. Some women who did not experience preeclampsia will end up having a heart attack, sometimes with no prior warning that anything was amiss. At least a history of preeclampsia provides a clue that women should take care of their hearts.
“The patient carries their history with them wherever they go,” Dr. Seely said. For now, this reality often requires women to mention their pregnancy history even if a provider doesn’t ask. Someday, Dr. Seely said, asking about that history will become just as routine for providers as asking about family history.
The study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Hallum and Dr. Seely have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women who experience preeclampsia during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth as pregnant women who did not, according to a new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. The risks are especially high in the first decade after giving birth, the researchers found.
Preeclampsia is the onset of high blood pressure after the 20th week of pregnancy combined with signs of organ damage, such as excess protein in the urine. It can occur in up to 8% of pregnancies, and the association between preeclampsia and long-term cardiac risks is well-known. But new research suggests these risks appear much earlier in life than expected – as early as age 30 – at a time when women are often not screened for signs of heart trouble
“Targeted interventions cannot wait until women with preeclampsia become eligible for conventional screening programs in middle age,” Sara Hallum, PhD, a coauthor of the study, told this news organization.
Dr. Hallum, who was an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen at the time of the study, and colleagues evaluated the medical histories of more than 1.1 million women in Denmark who became pregnant once or twice between 1978 and 2017. Of this group, 3% had experienced preeclampsia. They compared rates of heart attack and stroke between the two groups over time.
While 1.2% of the entire study population had experienced a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth, 2% of the women with a history of preeclampsia had such an event. Within the first decade after delivery, women with a history of preeclampsia were four times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as other women.
Women aged 30-39 with a history of preeclampsia were nearly five times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as similar-aged women. And if a woman gave birth twice and had preeclampsia only during the second pregnancy, she was at especially high risk for a heart attack, the researchers found.
“Women with a history of preeclampsia should be monitored routinely for modifiable risk factors, particularly for increased blood pressure,” Dr. Hallum said.
The Danish study population is racially homogeneous, so the researchers were not able to distinguish the effects of preeclampsia by racial group. In the United States, strong evidence shows that Black women experience the effects of preeclampsia more than others.
A useful clue to cardiac risk
Ellen Seely, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who specializes in preeclampsia, said physicians are less likely to ask women who have been pregnant if they had experienced preeclampsia than to ask if they smoke or have a family history of heart attacks. As a result, they may miss a looming cardiovascular event, especially in younger women who appear healthy.
“Emerging high blood pressure shouldn’t be ignored” in a seemingly healthy young woman, Dr. Seely said, particularly if that woman has divulged a history of preeclampsia. The doctor’s first step should be to verify hypertension, Dr. Seely said. If high blood pressure is evident, immediate treatment – such as encouraging more physical activity and a healthier diet – should follow. Watchful waiting in such cases is inappropriate, she added.
Although the experience of having preeclampsia is unpleasant and scary, Dr. Seely noted that in at least one way it can prove advantageous. Some women who did not experience preeclampsia will end up having a heart attack, sometimes with no prior warning that anything was amiss. At least a history of preeclampsia provides a clue that women should take care of their hearts.
“The patient carries their history with them wherever they go,” Dr. Seely said. For now, this reality often requires women to mention their pregnancy history even if a provider doesn’t ask. Someday, Dr. Seely said, asking about that history will become just as routine for providers as asking about family history.
The study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Hallum and Dr. Seely have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
Emotional eating tied to risk of diastolic dysfunction
Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.
“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.
Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.
Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.
In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.
Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).
Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.
More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.
The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.
“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.
“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”
The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”
Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.
More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.
Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.
Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.
“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.
Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.
Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.
In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.
Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).
Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.
More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.
The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.
“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.
“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”
The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”
Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.
More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.
Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.
Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.
“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.
Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.
Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.
In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.
Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).
Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.
More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.
The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.
“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.
“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”
The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”
Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.
More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.
Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.
Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
Can siRNA improve compliance in patients with hypertension?
Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.
It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.
These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.
The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.
This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
Lasting efficacy
Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.
“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.
Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).
Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.
“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
Unanswered questions
The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.
In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.
Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.
However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.
A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.
Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.
In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
On the horizon
Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.
It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.
These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.
The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.
This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
Lasting efficacy
Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.
“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.
Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).
Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.
“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
Unanswered questions
The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.
In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.
Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.
However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.
A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.
Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.
In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
On the horizon
Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.
It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.
These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.
The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.
This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
Lasting efficacy
Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.
“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.
Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).
Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.
“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
Unanswered questions
The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.
In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.
Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.
However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.
A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.
Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.
In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
On the horizon
Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
AT INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF THE FRENCH SOCIETY OF HYPERTENSION
Some BP meds tied to significantly lower risk for dementia, Alzheimer’s
Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.
“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Medicare beneficiaries
Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.
The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.
Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.
Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.
“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.
The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.
For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.
The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.
Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
Unanswered questions
After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).
The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.
As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).
Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).
A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.
“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
Stimulators instead of inhibitors?
The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.
But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.
Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.
“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.
However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.
That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.
As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.
The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
‘More convincing’
Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.
“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.
However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.
As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.
For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.
He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.
Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.
“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.
Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.
Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.
She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”
The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.
“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Medicare beneficiaries
Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.
The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.
Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.
Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.
“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.
The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.
For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.
The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.
Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
Unanswered questions
After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).
The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.
As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).
Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).
A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.
“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
Stimulators instead of inhibitors?
The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.
But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.
Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.
“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.
However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.
That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.
As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.
The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
‘More convincing’
Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.
“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.
However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.
As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.
For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.
He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.
Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.
“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.
Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.
Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.
She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”
The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.
Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.
“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Medicare beneficiaries
Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.
The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.
Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.
Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.
“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.
The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.
For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.
The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.
Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
Unanswered questions
After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).
The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.
As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).
Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).
A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.
“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
Stimulators instead of inhibitors?
The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.
But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.
Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.
“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.
However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.
That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.
As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.
The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
‘More convincing’
Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.
“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.
However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.
As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.
For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.
He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.
Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.
“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.
Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.
Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.
She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”
The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mediterranean diet linked with fewer pregnancy complications
Women in the United States who followed a Mediterranean-style diet – heavy on fresh foods, fish, and olive oil – around the time of conception had lower risk of developing a pregnancy complication, results of a large new study suggest.
The study included 7,798 women who had not given birth before. The group was geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse.
Researchers led by Nour Makarem, PhD, MS, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, published their results in JAMA Network Open.
“Generally, higher intakes of vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish, and whole grains and lower intakes of red and processed meat were associated with lower risk of APOs [adverse pregnancy outcomes],” the authors wrote.
21% lower risk of complications
The investigators found that women in the study – who were part of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which enrolled 10,038 women between Oct. 1, 2010, and Sept. 30, 2013, and scored high on adherence to a Mediterranean diet – had a 21% lower risk of developing any adverse pregnancy outcome (APO) than those who had low adherence. And the better the adherence, the lower the risk of adverse outcomes, especially preeclampsia or eclampsia and gestational diabetes, the researchers wrote.
The research team also studied how following the diet correlated with gestational high blood pressure, preterm birth, delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant, and stillbirth.
Women were scored on consumption of nine components: vegetables (excluding potatoes), fruits, nuts, whole grains, legumes, fish, monounsaturated to saturated fat ratio, red and processed meats, and alcohol.
No differences by race, ethnicity, or BMI
There were no differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes by race, ethnicity, or the woman’s body mass index before pregnancy, but associations were stronger in the women who were 35 years or older, according to the paper.
The authors pointed out that the women in the study had access to prenatal care at a large academic medical center during their first 3 months of pregnancy so the study may actually underestimate the importance of the diet in the pregnancy outcomes.
Christina Han, MD, division director of maternal-fetal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, who was not part of the study, said that the results make sense as the researchers looked at the time of conception, which is a time that reflects the way a person chooses to live their life.
“We know that your health state as you enter pregnancy can significantly affect your outcomes for that pregnancy,” she said. “We’ve known for decades now that a Mediterranean diet is good for just about everybody.”
Unequal access to foods on diet
Dr. Han said that, while it’s great the researchers were able to confirm the benefit of the Mediterranean diet, it highlights inequity as lower income people are not as likely to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and fish.
“This is a call to arms for our food distribution system to even out the big divide in what patients have access to,” Dr. Han said.
She noted that most of the women in this study were married, non-Hispanic White, and had higher levels of education which may make it hard to generalize these results to the general population.
A limitation of the study is that the women were asked to report what they ate themselves, which can be less accurate than when researchers record what is eaten in a controlled setting.
The researchers suggested a next step: “Long-term intervention studies are needed to assess whether promoting a Mediterranean-style diet around the time of conception and throughout pregnancy can prevent APOs.”
Dr. Makarem reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees for serving on the board of directors for iRhythm and from fees paid through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center from Abbott Diagnostics and Sanofi outside the submitted work, and one coauthor reported serving as a clinical end point committee member for GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Han reported no relevant financial relationships.
Women in the United States who followed a Mediterranean-style diet – heavy on fresh foods, fish, and olive oil – around the time of conception had lower risk of developing a pregnancy complication, results of a large new study suggest.
The study included 7,798 women who had not given birth before. The group was geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse.
Researchers led by Nour Makarem, PhD, MS, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, published their results in JAMA Network Open.
“Generally, higher intakes of vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish, and whole grains and lower intakes of red and processed meat were associated with lower risk of APOs [adverse pregnancy outcomes],” the authors wrote.
21% lower risk of complications
The investigators found that women in the study – who were part of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which enrolled 10,038 women between Oct. 1, 2010, and Sept. 30, 2013, and scored high on adherence to a Mediterranean diet – had a 21% lower risk of developing any adverse pregnancy outcome (APO) than those who had low adherence. And the better the adherence, the lower the risk of adverse outcomes, especially preeclampsia or eclampsia and gestational diabetes, the researchers wrote.
The research team also studied how following the diet correlated with gestational high blood pressure, preterm birth, delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant, and stillbirth.
Women were scored on consumption of nine components: vegetables (excluding potatoes), fruits, nuts, whole grains, legumes, fish, monounsaturated to saturated fat ratio, red and processed meats, and alcohol.
No differences by race, ethnicity, or BMI
There were no differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes by race, ethnicity, or the woman’s body mass index before pregnancy, but associations were stronger in the women who were 35 years or older, according to the paper.
The authors pointed out that the women in the study had access to prenatal care at a large academic medical center during their first 3 months of pregnancy so the study may actually underestimate the importance of the diet in the pregnancy outcomes.
Christina Han, MD, division director of maternal-fetal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, who was not part of the study, said that the results make sense as the researchers looked at the time of conception, which is a time that reflects the way a person chooses to live their life.
“We know that your health state as you enter pregnancy can significantly affect your outcomes for that pregnancy,” she said. “We’ve known for decades now that a Mediterranean diet is good for just about everybody.”
Unequal access to foods on diet
Dr. Han said that, while it’s great the researchers were able to confirm the benefit of the Mediterranean diet, it highlights inequity as lower income people are not as likely to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and fish.
“This is a call to arms for our food distribution system to even out the big divide in what patients have access to,” Dr. Han said.
She noted that most of the women in this study were married, non-Hispanic White, and had higher levels of education which may make it hard to generalize these results to the general population.
A limitation of the study is that the women were asked to report what they ate themselves, which can be less accurate than when researchers record what is eaten in a controlled setting.
The researchers suggested a next step: “Long-term intervention studies are needed to assess whether promoting a Mediterranean-style diet around the time of conception and throughout pregnancy can prevent APOs.”
Dr. Makarem reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees for serving on the board of directors for iRhythm and from fees paid through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center from Abbott Diagnostics and Sanofi outside the submitted work, and one coauthor reported serving as a clinical end point committee member for GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Han reported no relevant financial relationships.
Women in the United States who followed a Mediterranean-style diet – heavy on fresh foods, fish, and olive oil – around the time of conception had lower risk of developing a pregnancy complication, results of a large new study suggest.
The study included 7,798 women who had not given birth before. The group was geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse.
Researchers led by Nour Makarem, PhD, MS, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, published their results in JAMA Network Open.
“Generally, higher intakes of vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish, and whole grains and lower intakes of red and processed meat were associated with lower risk of APOs [adverse pregnancy outcomes],” the authors wrote.
21% lower risk of complications
The investigators found that women in the study – who were part of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which enrolled 10,038 women between Oct. 1, 2010, and Sept. 30, 2013, and scored high on adherence to a Mediterranean diet – had a 21% lower risk of developing any adverse pregnancy outcome (APO) than those who had low adherence. And the better the adherence, the lower the risk of adverse outcomes, especially preeclampsia or eclampsia and gestational diabetes, the researchers wrote.
The research team also studied how following the diet correlated with gestational high blood pressure, preterm birth, delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant, and stillbirth.
Women were scored on consumption of nine components: vegetables (excluding potatoes), fruits, nuts, whole grains, legumes, fish, monounsaturated to saturated fat ratio, red and processed meats, and alcohol.
No differences by race, ethnicity, or BMI
There were no differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes by race, ethnicity, or the woman’s body mass index before pregnancy, but associations were stronger in the women who were 35 years or older, according to the paper.
The authors pointed out that the women in the study had access to prenatal care at a large academic medical center during their first 3 months of pregnancy so the study may actually underestimate the importance of the diet in the pregnancy outcomes.
Christina Han, MD, division director of maternal-fetal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, who was not part of the study, said that the results make sense as the researchers looked at the time of conception, which is a time that reflects the way a person chooses to live their life.
“We know that your health state as you enter pregnancy can significantly affect your outcomes for that pregnancy,” she said. “We’ve known for decades now that a Mediterranean diet is good for just about everybody.”
Unequal access to foods on diet
Dr. Han said that, while it’s great the researchers were able to confirm the benefit of the Mediterranean diet, it highlights inequity as lower income people are not as likely to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables and fish.
“This is a call to arms for our food distribution system to even out the big divide in what patients have access to,” Dr. Han said.
She noted that most of the women in this study were married, non-Hispanic White, and had higher levels of education which may make it hard to generalize these results to the general population.
A limitation of the study is that the women were asked to report what they ate themselves, which can be less accurate than when researchers record what is eaten in a controlled setting.
The researchers suggested a next step: “Long-term intervention studies are needed to assess whether promoting a Mediterranean-style diet around the time of conception and throughout pregnancy can prevent APOs.”
Dr. Makarem reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees for serving on the board of directors for iRhythm and from fees paid through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center from Abbott Diagnostics and Sanofi outside the submitted work, and one coauthor reported serving as a clinical end point committee member for GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Han reported no relevant financial relationships.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Top cardiology societies call for revamp of clinical trials
Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.
“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”
The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.
The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.
Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).
But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.
“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.
A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.
“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.
“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.
“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.
No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.
“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”
The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.
The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.
Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).
But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.
“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.
A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.
“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.
“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.
“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.
No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.
“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”
The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.
The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.
Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).
But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.
“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.
A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.
“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.
“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.
“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.
No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.