Hypertension

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

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

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

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

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

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

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

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

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

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

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

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

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

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

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

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

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

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

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

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

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

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

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

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

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

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

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

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

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

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

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

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

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

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Sensible and practical’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher threshold for therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dose intensity, adverse events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Sensible and practical’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher threshold for therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dose intensity, adverse events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Sensible and practical’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher threshold for therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dose intensity, adverse events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

Symptoms of six common cardiovascular diseases (CVD) – acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, valvular disorders, stroke, rhythm disorders, and peripheral vascular disease – often overlap and may vary over time and by sex, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement.

“Symptoms of these cardiovascular diseases can profoundly affect quality of life, and a clear understanding of them is critical for effective diagnosis and treatment decisions,” Corrine Y. Jurgens, PhD, chair of the writing committee, said in a news release.

Copyright pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

This scientific statement is a “compendium detailing the symptoms associated with CVD, similarities or differences in symptoms among the conditions, and sex differences in symptom presentation and reporting,” said Dr. Jurgens, associate professor at Connell School of Nursing, Boston College.

The new statement was published online in Circulation.

The writing group noted that measuring CVD symptoms can be challenging because of their subjective nature. Symptoms may go unrecognized or unreported if people don’t think they are important or are related to an existing health condition.

“Some people may not consider symptoms like fatigue, sleep disturbance, weight gain, and depression as important or related to cardiovascular disease. However, research indicates that subtle symptoms such as these may predict acute events and the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Jurgens said.
 

ACS – chest pain and associated symptoms

The writing group noted that chest pain is the most frequently reported symptom of ACS and has often been described as substernal pressure or discomfort and may radiate to the jaw, shoulder, arm, or upper back.

The most common co-occurring symptoms are dyspnea, diaphoresis, unusual fatigue, nausea, and lightheadedness. Women are more likely than men to report additional symptoms outside of chest pain.

As a result, they have often been labeled “atypical.” However, a recent AHA advisory notes that this label may have been caused by the lack of women included in the clinical trials from which the symptom lists were derived.

The writing group said there is a need to “harmonize” ACS symptom measurement in research. The current lack of harmonization of ACS symptom measurement in research hampers growth in cumulative evidence.

“Therefore, little can be done to synthesize salient findings about symptoms across ischemic heart disease/ACS studies and to incorporate evidence-based information about symptoms into treatment guidelines and patient education materials,” they cautioned. 
 

Heart failure

Turning to heart failure (HF), the writing group noted that dyspnea is the classic symptom and a common reason adults seek medical care.

However, early, more subtle symptoms should be recognized. These include gastrointestinal symptoms such as upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; fatigue; exercise intolerance; insomnia; pain (chest and otherwise); mood disturbances (primarily depression and anxiety); and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog, memory problems).

Women with HF report a wider variety of symptoms, are more likely to have depression and anxiety, and report a lower quality of life, compared with men with HF.

“It is important to account for dyspnea heterogeneity in both clinical practice and research by using nuanced measures and probing questions to capture this common and multifaceted symptom,” the writing group said.

“Monitoring symptoms on a spectrum, versus present or not present, with reliable and valid measures may enhance clinical care by identifying more quickly those who may be at risk for poor outcomes, such as lower quality of life, hospitalization, or death,” Dr. Jurgens added.

“Ultimately, we have work to do in terms of determining who needs more frequent monitoring or intervention to avert poor HF outcomes,” she said.
 

Valvular heart disease

Valvular heart disease is a frequent cause of HF, with symptoms generally indistinguishable from other HF causes. Rheumatic heart disease is still prevalent in low- and middle-income countries but has largely disappeared in high-income countries, with population aging and cardiomyopathies now key drivers of valve disease.

In the absence of acute severe valve dysfunction, patients generally have a prolonged asymptomatic period, followed by a period of progressive symptoms, resulting from the valve lesion itself or secondary myocardial remodeling and dysfunction, the writing group said. 

Symptoms of aortic valve disease often differ between men and women. Aortic stenosis is typically silent for years. As stenosis progresses, women report dyspnea and exercise intolerance more often than men. Women are also more likely to be physically frail and to have a higher New York Heart Association class (III/IV) than men. Men are more likely to have chest pain.

“Given the importance of symptom assessment, more work is needed to determine the incremental value of quantitative symptom measurement as an aid to clinical management,” the writing group said.
 

Stroke

For clinicians, classic stroke symptoms (face drooping, arm weakness, speech difficulty), in addition to nonclassic symptoms, such as partial sensory deficit, dysarthria, vertigo, and diplopia, should be considered for activating a stroke response team, the group says.

A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that women with stroke were more likely to present with nonfocal symptoms (for example, headache, altered mentality, and coma/stupor) than men, they noted.

To enhance public education about stroke symptoms and to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of stroke, they say research is needed to better understand the presentation of stroke symptoms by other select demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity, age, and stroke subtype.

Poststroke screening should include assessment for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain, the writing group said.
 

Rhythm disorders

Turning to rhythm disorders, the writing group wrote that cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AFib), atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, bradyarrhythmia, and ventricular tachycardia, present with common symptoms.

Palpitations are a characteristic symptom of many cardiac arrhythmias. The most common cardiac arrhythmia, AFib, may present with palpitations or less specific symptoms (fatigue, dyspnea, dizziness) that occur with a broad range of rhythm disorders. Chest pain, dizziness, presyncope/syncope, and anxiety occur less frequently in AFib, the group said.

Palpitations are considered the typical symptom presentation for AFib, yet patients with new-onset AFib often present with nonspecific symptoms or no symptoms, they pointed out.

Women and younger individuals with AFib typically present with palpitations, whereas men are more commonly asymptomatic. Older age also increases the likelihood of a nonclassic or asymptomatic presentation of AFib.

Despite non-Hispanic Black individuals being at lower risk for development of AFib, research suggests that Black patients are burdened more with palpitations, dyspnea on exertion, exercise intolerance, dizziness, dyspnea at rest, and chest discomfort, compared with White or Hispanic patients.

Peripheral vascular disease

Classic claudication occurs in roughly one-third of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is defined as calf pain that occurs in one or both legs with exertion (walking), does not begin at rest, and resolves within 10 minutes of standing still or rest.

However, non–calf exercise pain is reported more frequently than classic claudication symptoms. Women with PAD are more likely to have nonclassic symptoms or an absence of symptoms.

Assessing symptoms at rest, during exercise, and during recovery can assist with classifying symptoms as ischemic or not, the writing group said.

PAD with symptoms is associated with an increased risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, with men at higher risk than women.

Similar to PAD, peripheral venous disease (PVD) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Clinical classification of PVD includes symptoms such as leg pain, aching, fatigue, heaviness, cramping, tightness, restless legs syndrome, and skin irritation.

“Measuring vascular symptoms includes assessing quality of life and activity limitations, as well as the psychological impact of the disease. However, existing measures are often based on the clinician’s appraisal rather than the individual’s self-reported symptoms and severity of symptoms,” Dr. Jurgens commented.
 

Watch for depression

Finally, the writing group highlighted the importance of depression in cardiac patients, which occurs at about twice the rate, compared with people without any medical condition (10% vs. 5%).

In a prior statement, the AHA said depression should be considered a risk factor for worse outcomes in patients with ACS or CVD diagnosis.

The new statement highlights that people with persistent chest pain, people with HF, as well as stroke survivors and people with PAD commonly have depression and/or anxiety. In addition, cognitive changes after a stroke may affect how and whether symptoms are experienced or noticed.

While symptom relief is an important part of managing CVD, it’s also important to recognize that “factors such as depression and cognitive function may affect symptom detection and reporting,” Dr. Jurgens said.

“Monitoring and measuring symptoms with tools that appropriately account for depression and cognitive function may help to improve patient care by identifying more quickly people who may be at higher risk,” she added.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Hypertension; and the Stroke Council. The research had no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptoms of six common cardiovascular diseases (CVD) – acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, valvular disorders, stroke, rhythm disorders, and peripheral vascular disease – often overlap and may vary over time and by sex, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement.

“Symptoms of these cardiovascular diseases can profoundly affect quality of life, and a clear understanding of them is critical for effective diagnosis and treatment decisions,” Corrine Y. Jurgens, PhD, chair of the writing committee, said in a news release.

Copyright pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

This scientific statement is a “compendium detailing the symptoms associated with CVD, similarities or differences in symptoms among the conditions, and sex differences in symptom presentation and reporting,” said Dr. Jurgens, associate professor at Connell School of Nursing, Boston College.

The new statement was published online in Circulation.

The writing group noted that measuring CVD symptoms can be challenging because of their subjective nature. Symptoms may go unrecognized or unreported if people don’t think they are important or are related to an existing health condition.

“Some people may not consider symptoms like fatigue, sleep disturbance, weight gain, and depression as important or related to cardiovascular disease. However, research indicates that subtle symptoms such as these may predict acute events and the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Jurgens said.
 

ACS – chest pain and associated symptoms

The writing group noted that chest pain is the most frequently reported symptom of ACS and has often been described as substernal pressure or discomfort and may radiate to the jaw, shoulder, arm, or upper back.

The most common co-occurring symptoms are dyspnea, diaphoresis, unusual fatigue, nausea, and lightheadedness. Women are more likely than men to report additional symptoms outside of chest pain.

As a result, they have often been labeled “atypical.” However, a recent AHA advisory notes that this label may have been caused by the lack of women included in the clinical trials from which the symptom lists were derived.

The writing group said there is a need to “harmonize” ACS symptom measurement in research. The current lack of harmonization of ACS symptom measurement in research hampers growth in cumulative evidence.

“Therefore, little can be done to synthesize salient findings about symptoms across ischemic heart disease/ACS studies and to incorporate evidence-based information about symptoms into treatment guidelines and patient education materials,” they cautioned. 
 

Heart failure

Turning to heart failure (HF), the writing group noted that dyspnea is the classic symptom and a common reason adults seek medical care.

However, early, more subtle symptoms should be recognized. These include gastrointestinal symptoms such as upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; fatigue; exercise intolerance; insomnia; pain (chest and otherwise); mood disturbances (primarily depression and anxiety); and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog, memory problems).

Women with HF report a wider variety of symptoms, are more likely to have depression and anxiety, and report a lower quality of life, compared with men with HF.

“It is important to account for dyspnea heterogeneity in both clinical practice and research by using nuanced measures and probing questions to capture this common and multifaceted symptom,” the writing group said.

“Monitoring symptoms on a spectrum, versus present or not present, with reliable and valid measures may enhance clinical care by identifying more quickly those who may be at risk for poor outcomes, such as lower quality of life, hospitalization, or death,” Dr. Jurgens added.

“Ultimately, we have work to do in terms of determining who needs more frequent monitoring or intervention to avert poor HF outcomes,” she said.
 

Valvular heart disease

Valvular heart disease is a frequent cause of HF, with symptoms generally indistinguishable from other HF causes. Rheumatic heart disease is still prevalent in low- and middle-income countries but has largely disappeared in high-income countries, with population aging and cardiomyopathies now key drivers of valve disease.

In the absence of acute severe valve dysfunction, patients generally have a prolonged asymptomatic period, followed by a period of progressive symptoms, resulting from the valve lesion itself or secondary myocardial remodeling and dysfunction, the writing group said. 

Symptoms of aortic valve disease often differ between men and women. Aortic stenosis is typically silent for years. As stenosis progresses, women report dyspnea and exercise intolerance more often than men. Women are also more likely to be physically frail and to have a higher New York Heart Association class (III/IV) than men. Men are more likely to have chest pain.

“Given the importance of symptom assessment, more work is needed to determine the incremental value of quantitative symptom measurement as an aid to clinical management,” the writing group said.
 

Stroke

For clinicians, classic stroke symptoms (face drooping, arm weakness, speech difficulty), in addition to nonclassic symptoms, such as partial sensory deficit, dysarthria, vertigo, and diplopia, should be considered for activating a stroke response team, the group says.

A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that women with stroke were more likely to present with nonfocal symptoms (for example, headache, altered mentality, and coma/stupor) than men, they noted.

To enhance public education about stroke symptoms and to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of stroke, they say research is needed to better understand the presentation of stroke symptoms by other select demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity, age, and stroke subtype.

Poststroke screening should include assessment for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain, the writing group said.
 

Rhythm disorders

Turning to rhythm disorders, the writing group wrote that cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AFib), atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, bradyarrhythmia, and ventricular tachycardia, present with common symptoms.

Palpitations are a characteristic symptom of many cardiac arrhythmias. The most common cardiac arrhythmia, AFib, may present with palpitations or less specific symptoms (fatigue, dyspnea, dizziness) that occur with a broad range of rhythm disorders. Chest pain, dizziness, presyncope/syncope, and anxiety occur less frequently in AFib, the group said.

Palpitations are considered the typical symptom presentation for AFib, yet patients with new-onset AFib often present with nonspecific symptoms or no symptoms, they pointed out.

Women and younger individuals with AFib typically present with palpitations, whereas men are more commonly asymptomatic. Older age also increases the likelihood of a nonclassic or asymptomatic presentation of AFib.

Despite non-Hispanic Black individuals being at lower risk for development of AFib, research suggests that Black patients are burdened more with palpitations, dyspnea on exertion, exercise intolerance, dizziness, dyspnea at rest, and chest discomfort, compared with White or Hispanic patients.

Peripheral vascular disease

Classic claudication occurs in roughly one-third of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is defined as calf pain that occurs in one or both legs with exertion (walking), does not begin at rest, and resolves within 10 minutes of standing still or rest.

However, non–calf exercise pain is reported more frequently than classic claudication symptoms. Women with PAD are more likely to have nonclassic symptoms or an absence of symptoms.

Assessing symptoms at rest, during exercise, and during recovery can assist with classifying symptoms as ischemic or not, the writing group said.

PAD with symptoms is associated with an increased risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, with men at higher risk than women.

Similar to PAD, peripheral venous disease (PVD) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Clinical classification of PVD includes symptoms such as leg pain, aching, fatigue, heaviness, cramping, tightness, restless legs syndrome, and skin irritation.

“Measuring vascular symptoms includes assessing quality of life and activity limitations, as well as the psychological impact of the disease. However, existing measures are often based on the clinician’s appraisal rather than the individual’s self-reported symptoms and severity of symptoms,” Dr. Jurgens commented.
 

Watch for depression

Finally, the writing group highlighted the importance of depression in cardiac patients, which occurs at about twice the rate, compared with people without any medical condition (10% vs. 5%).

In a prior statement, the AHA said depression should be considered a risk factor for worse outcomes in patients with ACS or CVD diagnosis.

The new statement highlights that people with persistent chest pain, people with HF, as well as stroke survivors and people with PAD commonly have depression and/or anxiety. In addition, cognitive changes after a stroke may affect how and whether symptoms are experienced or noticed.

While symptom relief is an important part of managing CVD, it’s also important to recognize that “factors such as depression and cognitive function may affect symptom detection and reporting,” Dr. Jurgens said.

“Monitoring and measuring symptoms with tools that appropriately account for depression and cognitive function may help to improve patient care by identifying more quickly people who may be at higher risk,” she added.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Hypertension; and the Stroke Council. The research had no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptoms of six common cardiovascular diseases (CVD) – acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, valvular disorders, stroke, rhythm disorders, and peripheral vascular disease – often overlap and may vary over time and by sex, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement.

“Symptoms of these cardiovascular diseases can profoundly affect quality of life, and a clear understanding of them is critical for effective diagnosis and treatment decisions,” Corrine Y. Jurgens, PhD, chair of the writing committee, said in a news release.

Copyright pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

This scientific statement is a “compendium detailing the symptoms associated with CVD, similarities or differences in symptoms among the conditions, and sex differences in symptom presentation and reporting,” said Dr. Jurgens, associate professor at Connell School of Nursing, Boston College.

The new statement was published online in Circulation.

The writing group noted that measuring CVD symptoms can be challenging because of their subjective nature. Symptoms may go unrecognized or unreported if people don’t think they are important or are related to an existing health condition.

“Some people may not consider symptoms like fatigue, sleep disturbance, weight gain, and depression as important or related to cardiovascular disease. However, research indicates that subtle symptoms such as these may predict acute events and the need for hospitalization,” Dr. Jurgens said.
 

ACS – chest pain and associated symptoms

The writing group noted that chest pain is the most frequently reported symptom of ACS and has often been described as substernal pressure or discomfort and may radiate to the jaw, shoulder, arm, or upper back.

The most common co-occurring symptoms are dyspnea, diaphoresis, unusual fatigue, nausea, and lightheadedness. Women are more likely than men to report additional symptoms outside of chest pain.

As a result, they have often been labeled “atypical.” However, a recent AHA advisory notes that this label may have been caused by the lack of women included in the clinical trials from which the symptom lists were derived.

The writing group said there is a need to “harmonize” ACS symptom measurement in research. The current lack of harmonization of ACS symptom measurement in research hampers growth in cumulative evidence.

“Therefore, little can be done to synthesize salient findings about symptoms across ischemic heart disease/ACS studies and to incorporate evidence-based information about symptoms into treatment guidelines and patient education materials,” they cautioned. 
 

Heart failure

Turning to heart failure (HF), the writing group noted that dyspnea is the classic symptom and a common reason adults seek medical care.

However, early, more subtle symptoms should be recognized. These include gastrointestinal symptoms such as upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; fatigue; exercise intolerance; insomnia; pain (chest and otherwise); mood disturbances (primarily depression and anxiety); and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog, memory problems).

Women with HF report a wider variety of symptoms, are more likely to have depression and anxiety, and report a lower quality of life, compared with men with HF.

“It is important to account for dyspnea heterogeneity in both clinical practice and research by using nuanced measures and probing questions to capture this common and multifaceted symptom,” the writing group said.

“Monitoring symptoms on a spectrum, versus present or not present, with reliable and valid measures may enhance clinical care by identifying more quickly those who may be at risk for poor outcomes, such as lower quality of life, hospitalization, or death,” Dr. Jurgens added.

“Ultimately, we have work to do in terms of determining who needs more frequent monitoring or intervention to avert poor HF outcomes,” she said.
 

Valvular heart disease

Valvular heart disease is a frequent cause of HF, with symptoms generally indistinguishable from other HF causes. Rheumatic heart disease is still prevalent in low- and middle-income countries but has largely disappeared in high-income countries, with population aging and cardiomyopathies now key drivers of valve disease.

In the absence of acute severe valve dysfunction, patients generally have a prolonged asymptomatic period, followed by a period of progressive symptoms, resulting from the valve lesion itself or secondary myocardial remodeling and dysfunction, the writing group said. 

Symptoms of aortic valve disease often differ between men and women. Aortic stenosis is typically silent for years. As stenosis progresses, women report dyspnea and exercise intolerance more often than men. Women are also more likely to be physically frail and to have a higher New York Heart Association class (III/IV) than men. Men are more likely to have chest pain.

“Given the importance of symptom assessment, more work is needed to determine the incremental value of quantitative symptom measurement as an aid to clinical management,” the writing group said.
 

Stroke

For clinicians, classic stroke symptoms (face drooping, arm weakness, speech difficulty), in addition to nonclassic symptoms, such as partial sensory deficit, dysarthria, vertigo, and diplopia, should be considered for activating a stroke response team, the group says.

A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that women with stroke were more likely to present with nonfocal symptoms (for example, headache, altered mentality, and coma/stupor) than men, they noted.

To enhance public education about stroke symptoms and to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of stroke, they say research is needed to better understand the presentation of stroke symptoms by other select demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity, age, and stroke subtype.

Poststroke screening should include assessment for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain, the writing group said.
 

Rhythm disorders

Turning to rhythm disorders, the writing group wrote that cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AFib), atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, bradyarrhythmia, and ventricular tachycardia, present with common symptoms.

Palpitations are a characteristic symptom of many cardiac arrhythmias. The most common cardiac arrhythmia, AFib, may present with palpitations or less specific symptoms (fatigue, dyspnea, dizziness) that occur with a broad range of rhythm disorders. Chest pain, dizziness, presyncope/syncope, and anxiety occur less frequently in AFib, the group said.

Palpitations are considered the typical symptom presentation for AFib, yet patients with new-onset AFib often present with nonspecific symptoms or no symptoms, they pointed out.

Women and younger individuals with AFib typically present with palpitations, whereas men are more commonly asymptomatic. Older age also increases the likelihood of a nonclassic or asymptomatic presentation of AFib.

Despite non-Hispanic Black individuals being at lower risk for development of AFib, research suggests that Black patients are burdened more with palpitations, dyspnea on exertion, exercise intolerance, dizziness, dyspnea at rest, and chest discomfort, compared with White or Hispanic patients.

Peripheral vascular disease

Classic claudication occurs in roughly one-third of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is defined as calf pain that occurs in one or both legs with exertion (walking), does not begin at rest, and resolves within 10 minutes of standing still or rest.

However, non–calf exercise pain is reported more frequently than classic claudication symptoms. Women with PAD are more likely to have nonclassic symptoms or an absence of symptoms.

Assessing symptoms at rest, during exercise, and during recovery can assist with classifying symptoms as ischemic or not, the writing group said.

PAD with symptoms is associated with an increased risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, with men at higher risk than women.

Similar to PAD, peripheral venous disease (PVD) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Clinical classification of PVD includes symptoms such as leg pain, aching, fatigue, heaviness, cramping, tightness, restless legs syndrome, and skin irritation.

“Measuring vascular symptoms includes assessing quality of life and activity limitations, as well as the psychological impact of the disease. However, existing measures are often based on the clinician’s appraisal rather than the individual’s self-reported symptoms and severity of symptoms,” Dr. Jurgens commented.
 

Watch for depression

Finally, the writing group highlighted the importance of depression in cardiac patients, which occurs at about twice the rate, compared with people without any medical condition (10% vs. 5%).

In a prior statement, the AHA said depression should be considered a risk factor for worse outcomes in patients with ACS or CVD diagnosis.

The new statement highlights that people with persistent chest pain, people with HF, as well as stroke survivors and people with PAD commonly have depression and/or anxiety. In addition, cognitive changes after a stroke may affect how and whether symptoms are experienced or noticed.

While symptom relief is an important part of managing CVD, it’s also important to recognize that “factors such as depression and cognitive function may affect symptom detection and reporting,” Dr. Jurgens said.

“Monitoring and measuring symptoms with tools that appropriately account for depression and cognitive function may help to improve patient care by identifying more quickly people who may be at higher risk,” she added.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Hypertension; and the Stroke Council. The research had no commercial funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is a global problem that affects poorer countries as much as it affects more affluent ones, a new study suggests.

A cross-sectional study of some 1.2 million adults in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) found that overall, rates of hypertension were similar across all levels of education and wealth.

The one outlier was Southeast Asia. There, higher levels of education and household wealth were associated with a greater prevalence of hypertension, but the absolute difference was small.

However, the authors of the study caution that hypertension may increasingly affect adults in the lowest socioeconomic groups as LMICs develop economically.

The study is published online  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Assumptions about hypertension are wrong

“We found that the differences in hypertension prevalence between education and household wealth groups were small in most low- and middle-income countries, so the frequent assumption that hypertension mostly affects the wealthiest and most educated groups in low-and middle-income countries appears to be largely untenable,” senior author Pascal Geldsetzer, MD, MPH, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

High blood pressure is sometimes assumed to be a result of “Westernized” lifestyles characterized by a high intake of calorie-dense foods and salt and low physical activity. As a result, the condition is frequently thought of as mainly afflicting wealthier segments of society in LMICs, which may in part be responsible for the low degree of funding and attention that hypertension in LMICs has received thus far, Dr. Geldsetzer said.

Traditionally, other global health issues, particularly HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, have received the lion’s share of government funding. Hypertension, thought to be a condition affecting more affluent countries because it is associated with obesity and a sedentary lifestyle, was ignored, he said.

Knowing the socioeconomic gradients associated with hypertension in LMICs and how these may change in the future is important for policy makers, Dr. Geldsetzer added.

Led by Tabea K. Kirschbaum, MD, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Germany, the researchers examined hypertension prevalence by education and household wealth from 76 LMICs in 1,211,386 participants and assessed whether the effect was modified by the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Their analysis included 76 surveys, of which 58 were World Health Organization Stepwise Approach to Surveillance surveys. The median age of the participants was 40 years, and 58.5% were women.

Overall, hypertension prevalence tended to be similar across all educational and household wealth levels and across countries with lower and higher GDPs, although there were some “negligible” country and regional variations.

Treatment rates with blood pressure–lowering drugs for participants who had hypertension were higher in countries with higher GDPs.

Women were more likely to be taking medication than were men.

In some countries, the proportion of individuals taking blood pressure–lowering medication was higher in wealthier households.

In Southeast Asia, however, there was a strong association found between the prevalence of hypertension and higher household wealth levels. Compared with the least wealthy, the risk ratio for the wealthiest was 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.34). A similar association was found for education levels as well.

Education was negatively associated with hypertension in the Eastern Mediterranean. Rates were higher among men than among women.

In an accompanying editorial, Yashashwi Pokharel, MBBS, MSCR, from Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues write:

“Now that we know that hypertension prevalence is not different in the poorest, the least educated, or the least economically developed countries, compared with their wealthier and educated counterparts, we should develop, test, and implement effective strategies to enhance global equity in hypertension care.”

Dr. Pokharel told this news organization that, despite the study’s limitations including heterogeneous data, measurement techniques, and blood pressure monitor use across countries, the signal is loud and clear.

“We urgently need to focus on turning off the faucet by addressing the major determinants of increasing hypertension burden, including the sociocultural and political determinants,” he said. “In this regard, setting funding priorities by donors for hypertension, capacity building, and testing and scaling effective population level hypertension prevention and treatment strategies, developed together with local stakeholders, can have a long-lasting effect. If we perpetuate the neglect, we will ineffectively spend more time mopping up the floor.”

Dr. Geldsetzer is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator. Dr. Pokharel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is a global problem that affects poorer countries as much as it affects more affluent ones, a new study suggests.

A cross-sectional study of some 1.2 million adults in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) found that overall, rates of hypertension were similar across all levels of education and wealth.

The one outlier was Southeast Asia. There, higher levels of education and household wealth were associated with a greater prevalence of hypertension, but the absolute difference was small.

However, the authors of the study caution that hypertension may increasingly affect adults in the lowest socioeconomic groups as LMICs develop economically.

The study is published online  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Assumptions about hypertension are wrong

“We found that the differences in hypertension prevalence between education and household wealth groups were small in most low- and middle-income countries, so the frequent assumption that hypertension mostly affects the wealthiest and most educated groups in low-and middle-income countries appears to be largely untenable,” senior author Pascal Geldsetzer, MD, MPH, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

High blood pressure is sometimes assumed to be a result of “Westernized” lifestyles characterized by a high intake of calorie-dense foods and salt and low physical activity. As a result, the condition is frequently thought of as mainly afflicting wealthier segments of society in LMICs, which may in part be responsible for the low degree of funding and attention that hypertension in LMICs has received thus far, Dr. Geldsetzer said.

Traditionally, other global health issues, particularly HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, have received the lion’s share of government funding. Hypertension, thought to be a condition affecting more affluent countries because it is associated with obesity and a sedentary lifestyle, was ignored, he said.

Knowing the socioeconomic gradients associated with hypertension in LMICs and how these may change in the future is important for policy makers, Dr. Geldsetzer added.

Led by Tabea K. Kirschbaum, MD, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Germany, the researchers examined hypertension prevalence by education and household wealth from 76 LMICs in 1,211,386 participants and assessed whether the effect was modified by the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Their analysis included 76 surveys, of which 58 were World Health Organization Stepwise Approach to Surveillance surveys. The median age of the participants was 40 years, and 58.5% were women.

Overall, hypertension prevalence tended to be similar across all educational and household wealth levels and across countries with lower and higher GDPs, although there were some “negligible” country and regional variations.

Treatment rates with blood pressure–lowering drugs for participants who had hypertension were higher in countries with higher GDPs.

Women were more likely to be taking medication than were men.

In some countries, the proportion of individuals taking blood pressure–lowering medication was higher in wealthier households.

In Southeast Asia, however, there was a strong association found between the prevalence of hypertension and higher household wealth levels. Compared with the least wealthy, the risk ratio for the wealthiest was 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.34). A similar association was found for education levels as well.

Education was negatively associated with hypertension in the Eastern Mediterranean. Rates were higher among men than among women.

In an accompanying editorial, Yashashwi Pokharel, MBBS, MSCR, from Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues write:

“Now that we know that hypertension prevalence is not different in the poorest, the least educated, or the least economically developed countries, compared with their wealthier and educated counterparts, we should develop, test, and implement effective strategies to enhance global equity in hypertension care.”

Dr. Pokharel told this news organization that, despite the study’s limitations including heterogeneous data, measurement techniques, and blood pressure monitor use across countries, the signal is loud and clear.

“We urgently need to focus on turning off the faucet by addressing the major determinants of increasing hypertension burden, including the sociocultural and political determinants,” he said. “In this regard, setting funding priorities by donors for hypertension, capacity building, and testing and scaling effective population level hypertension prevention and treatment strategies, developed together with local stakeholders, can have a long-lasting effect. If we perpetuate the neglect, we will ineffectively spend more time mopping up the floor.”

Dr. Geldsetzer is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator. Dr. Pokharel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is a global problem that affects poorer countries as much as it affects more affluent ones, a new study suggests.

A cross-sectional study of some 1.2 million adults in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) found that overall, rates of hypertension were similar across all levels of education and wealth.

The one outlier was Southeast Asia. There, higher levels of education and household wealth were associated with a greater prevalence of hypertension, but the absolute difference was small.

However, the authors of the study caution that hypertension may increasingly affect adults in the lowest socioeconomic groups as LMICs develop economically.

The study is published online  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Assumptions about hypertension are wrong

“We found that the differences in hypertension prevalence between education and household wealth groups were small in most low- and middle-income countries, so the frequent assumption that hypertension mostly affects the wealthiest and most educated groups in low-and middle-income countries appears to be largely untenable,” senior author Pascal Geldsetzer, MD, MPH, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

High blood pressure is sometimes assumed to be a result of “Westernized” lifestyles characterized by a high intake of calorie-dense foods and salt and low physical activity. As a result, the condition is frequently thought of as mainly afflicting wealthier segments of society in LMICs, which may in part be responsible for the low degree of funding and attention that hypertension in LMICs has received thus far, Dr. Geldsetzer said.

Traditionally, other global health issues, particularly HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, have received the lion’s share of government funding. Hypertension, thought to be a condition affecting more affluent countries because it is associated with obesity and a sedentary lifestyle, was ignored, he said.

Knowing the socioeconomic gradients associated with hypertension in LMICs and how these may change in the future is important for policy makers, Dr. Geldsetzer added.

Led by Tabea K. Kirschbaum, MD, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Germany, the researchers examined hypertension prevalence by education and household wealth from 76 LMICs in 1,211,386 participants and assessed whether the effect was modified by the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Their analysis included 76 surveys, of which 58 were World Health Organization Stepwise Approach to Surveillance surveys. The median age of the participants was 40 years, and 58.5% were women.

Overall, hypertension prevalence tended to be similar across all educational and household wealth levels and across countries with lower and higher GDPs, although there were some “negligible” country and regional variations.

Treatment rates with blood pressure–lowering drugs for participants who had hypertension were higher in countries with higher GDPs.

Women were more likely to be taking medication than were men.

In some countries, the proportion of individuals taking blood pressure–lowering medication was higher in wealthier households.

In Southeast Asia, however, there was a strong association found between the prevalence of hypertension and higher household wealth levels. Compared with the least wealthy, the risk ratio for the wealthiest was 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.34). A similar association was found for education levels as well.

Education was negatively associated with hypertension in the Eastern Mediterranean. Rates were higher among men than among women.

In an accompanying editorial, Yashashwi Pokharel, MBBS, MSCR, from Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues write:

“Now that we know that hypertension prevalence is not different in the poorest, the least educated, or the least economically developed countries, compared with their wealthier and educated counterparts, we should develop, test, and implement effective strategies to enhance global equity in hypertension care.”

Dr. Pokharel told this news organization that, despite the study’s limitations including heterogeneous data, measurement techniques, and blood pressure monitor use across countries, the signal is loud and clear.

“We urgently need to focus on turning off the faucet by addressing the major determinants of increasing hypertension burden, including the sociocultural and political determinants,” he said. “In this regard, setting funding priorities by donors for hypertension, capacity building, and testing and scaling effective population level hypertension prevention and treatment strategies, developed together with local stakeholders, can have a long-lasting effect. If we perpetuate the neglect, we will ineffectively spend more time mopping up the floor.”

Dr. Geldsetzer is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator. Dr. Pokharel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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