Hypertension

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

Giving patients and their providers genetic test results for kidney failure risk promotes positive behavioral change that could decrease an individual’s likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal failure (ESRF), a new pilot study suggests.

“Disclosing APOL1 genetic testing results to patients of African ancestry with hypertension and their clinicians was associated with a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure [SBP], increased kidney disease screening, and positive self-reported behavior change in those with high-risk genotypes,” Girish Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported.

“These two measurements – the change in blood pressure and increased kidney function tests – act as hallmarks for detecting beneficial lifestyle change,” Dr. Nadkarni noted in a statement from his institution.

“For many years, researchers have wondered whether reporting APOL1 genetic test results would help improve clinical management. This is the first pragmatic randomized clinical trial to test this out [and] these results suggest we are headed in the right direction,” he added.

The study was published online March 4, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
 

A quarter of those with high-risk genotype changed medication behavior

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and ESRF caused by hypertension and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry. People of African ancestry also have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of high BP and the lowest rates of BP control, Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues wrote.

They studied a total of 2,050 patients of African ancestry with hypertension but without CKD who were randomized to undergo either immediate APOL1 testing (intervention group) or delayed APOL1 testing (control group).

“Patients randomly assigned to the intervention group received APOL1 genetic testing results from trained staff [while] their clinicians received results through clinical decision support in electronic health records,” the investigators explained.

Control patients received results after 12 months of follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 53 years and almost two-thirds were female. Mean baseline SBP was significantly higher in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 137 mm Hg, compared with those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 134 mm Hg (P = .003), and controls, at 133 mm Hg (P = .001), the authors reported. 

At 3 months, “all groups had some decrease in SBP,” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues observed.

However, patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes had a significantly greater decrease in SBP, at 6 mm Hg, compared with a mean decrease of 3 mm Hg for those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes (P = .004) as well as controls (P = .01). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in SBP or change in SBP from baseline to 12 months between the three groups.

“All three groups showed a significant increase in the rate of urine protein testing over time,” the authors added.

Again, however, the most significant increase in urine protein testing over time was seen in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, with a 12% increase from baseline, compared with a 6% increase for patients with low-risk APOL1 genotypes and a 7% increase among controls. The difference was significant only between patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes and controls (P = .01).

Significantly more patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 59%, reported making positive lifestyle changes as reflected in better dietary and exercise habits after receiving their test results than did those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 37% (P < .001).

Moreover, 24% of those with high-risk genotypes reported that receiving test results changed how they take their BP medication, compared with only 10% of those with low-risk genotypes.

More high-risk genotype carriers also reported taking their medications more often, at 10%, compared with 5% of low-risk genotype carriers (P = .005).

On the other hand, more patients with the high-risk genotype, at 27%, worried that they would develop kidney problems than low-risk carriers, at 17% (P < .001). Although investigators did offer patients the opportunity to speak with a genetic counselor at no cost, none chose to do so, the authors noted.
 

Small improvements

As the investigators emphasized, the magnitude of BP improvement seen in high-risk APOL1 carriers was small. However, they did not provide specific BP target recommendations or BP-lowering strategies, which, had they done so, may have brought BP down to a greater degree.

Health behavior changes were similarly small and may not have been clinically that meaningful.

Still, “results suggest that the trial clearly influenced those who received positive results and may have had some positive effects on other patients,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

Dr. Nadkarni is a cofounder of and has equity in Renalytx, and has been a member of the scientific advisory board and received personal fees from the company. He is also a cofounder of Pensieve Health.

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

Giving patients and their providers genetic test results for kidney failure risk promotes positive behavioral change that could decrease an individual’s likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal failure (ESRF), a new pilot study suggests.

“Disclosing APOL1 genetic testing results to patients of African ancestry with hypertension and their clinicians was associated with a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure [SBP], increased kidney disease screening, and positive self-reported behavior change in those with high-risk genotypes,” Girish Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported.

“These two measurements – the change in blood pressure and increased kidney function tests – act as hallmarks for detecting beneficial lifestyle change,” Dr. Nadkarni noted in a statement from his institution.

“For many years, researchers have wondered whether reporting APOL1 genetic test results would help improve clinical management. This is the first pragmatic randomized clinical trial to test this out [and] these results suggest we are headed in the right direction,” he added.

The study was published online March 4, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
 

A quarter of those with high-risk genotype changed medication behavior

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and ESRF caused by hypertension and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry. People of African ancestry also have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of high BP and the lowest rates of BP control, Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues wrote.

They studied a total of 2,050 patients of African ancestry with hypertension but without CKD who were randomized to undergo either immediate APOL1 testing (intervention group) or delayed APOL1 testing (control group).

“Patients randomly assigned to the intervention group received APOL1 genetic testing results from trained staff [while] their clinicians received results through clinical decision support in electronic health records,” the investigators explained.

Control patients received results after 12 months of follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 53 years and almost two-thirds were female. Mean baseline SBP was significantly higher in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 137 mm Hg, compared with those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 134 mm Hg (P = .003), and controls, at 133 mm Hg (P = .001), the authors reported. 

At 3 months, “all groups had some decrease in SBP,” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues observed.

However, patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes had a significantly greater decrease in SBP, at 6 mm Hg, compared with a mean decrease of 3 mm Hg for those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes (P = .004) as well as controls (P = .01). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in SBP or change in SBP from baseline to 12 months between the three groups.

“All three groups showed a significant increase in the rate of urine protein testing over time,” the authors added.

Again, however, the most significant increase in urine protein testing over time was seen in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, with a 12% increase from baseline, compared with a 6% increase for patients with low-risk APOL1 genotypes and a 7% increase among controls. The difference was significant only between patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes and controls (P = .01).

Significantly more patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 59%, reported making positive lifestyle changes as reflected in better dietary and exercise habits after receiving their test results than did those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 37% (P < .001).

Moreover, 24% of those with high-risk genotypes reported that receiving test results changed how they take their BP medication, compared with only 10% of those with low-risk genotypes.

More high-risk genotype carriers also reported taking their medications more often, at 10%, compared with 5% of low-risk genotype carriers (P = .005).

On the other hand, more patients with the high-risk genotype, at 27%, worried that they would develop kidney problems than low-risk carriers, at 17% (P < .001). Although investigators did offer patients the opportunity to speak with a genetic counselor at no cost, none chose to do so, the authors noted.
 

Small improvements

As the investigators emphasized, the magnitude of BP improvement seen in high-risk APOL1 carriers was small. However, they did not provide specific BP target recommendations or BP-lowering strategies, which, had they done so, may have brought BP down to a greater degree.

Health behavior changes were similarly small and may not have been clinically that meaningful.

Still, “results suggest that the trial clearly influenced those who received positive results and may have had some positive effects on other patients,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

Dr. Nadkarni is a cofounder of and has equity in Renalytx, and has been a member of the scientific advisory board and received personal fees from the company. He is also a cofounder of Pensieve Health.

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

Giving patients and their providers genetic test results for kidney failure risk promotes positive behavioral change that could decrease an individual’s likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal failure (ESRF), a new pilot study suggests.

“Disclosing APOL1 genetic testing results to patients of African ancestry with hypertension and their clinicians was associated with a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure [SBP], increased kidney disease screening, and positive self-reported behavior change in those with high-risk genotypes,” Girish Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported.

“These two measurements – the change in blood pressure and increased kidney function tests – act as hallmarks for detecting beneficial lifestyle change,” Dr. Nadkarni noted in a statement from his institution.

“For many years, researchers have wondered whether reporting APOL1 genetic test results would help improve clinical management. This is the first pragmatic randomized clinical trial to test this out [and] these results suggest we are headed in the right direction,” he added.

The study was published online March 4, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
 

A quarter of those with high-risk genotype changed medication behavior

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and ESRF caused by hypertension and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry. People of African ancestry also have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of high BP and the lowest rates of BP control, Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues wrote.

They studied a total of 2,050 patients of African ancestry with hypertension but without CKD who were randomized to undergo either immediate APOL1 testing (intervention group) or delayed APOL1 testing (control group).

“Patients randomly assigned to the intervention group received APOL1 genetic testing results from trained staff [while] their clinicians received results through clinical decision support in electronic health records,” the investigators explained.

Control patients received results after 12 months of follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 53 years and almost two-thirds were female. Mean baseline SBP was significantly higher in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 137 mm Hg, compared with those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 134 mm Hg (P = .003), and controls, at 133 mm Hg (P = .001), the authors reported. 

At 3 months, “all groups had some decrease in SBP,” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues observed.

However, patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes had a significantly greater decrease in SBP, at 6 mm Hg, compared with a mean decrease of 3 mm Hg for those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes (P = .004) as well as controls (P = .01). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in SBP or change in SBP from baseline to 12 months between the three groups.

“All three groups showed a significant increase in the rate of urine protein testing over time,” the authors added.

Again, however, the most significant increase in urine protein testing over time was seen in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, with a 12% increase from baseline, compared with a 6% increase for patients with low-risk APOL1 genotypes and a 7% increase among controls. The difference was significant only between patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes and controls (P = .01).

Significantly more patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 59%, reported making positive lifestyle changes as reflected in better dietary and exercise habits after receiving their test results than did those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 37% (P < .001).

Moreover, 24% of those with high-risk genotypes reported that receiving test results changed how they take their BP medication, compared with only 10% of those with low-risk genotypes.

More high-risk genotype carriers also reported taking their medications more often, at 10%, compared with 5% of low-risk genotype carriers (P = .005).

On the other hand, more patients with the high-risk genotype, at 27%, worried that they would develop kidney problems than low-risk carriers, at 17% (P < .001). Although investigators did offer patients the opportunity to speak with a genetic counselor at no cost, none chose to do so, the authors noted.
 

Small improvements

As the investigators emphasized, the magnitude of BP improvement seen in high-risk APOL1 carriers was small. However, they did not provide specific BP target recommendations or BP-lowering strategies, which, had they done so, may have brought BP down to a greater degree.

Health behavior changes were similarly small and may not have been clinically that meaningful.

Still, “results suggest that the trial clearly influenced those who received positive results and may have had some positive effects on other patients,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

Dr. Nadkarni is a cofounder of and has equity in Renalytx, and has been a member of the scientific advisory board and received personal fees from the company. He is also a cofounder of Pensieve Health.

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

Everyone’s been there. You’ve arrived for your scheduled doctor’s office visit and the first order of real business is the reunion with the blood pressure cuff. The first reading might be high. A second reading looks a bit better – or maybe a bit worse. Which one’s right?

The answer: Perhaps neither. Individual measures of blood pressure are not as accurate as taking multiple readings over a day and averaging them.

Blood pressure varies throughout the day – by about 30 points for systolic pressure, or the pressure when the heart beats – and one or two measurements in a doctor’s office may not accurately reflect the average figure, said Beverly B. Green, MD, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.

Average blood pressure reading is the only measurement on which a doctor can accurately diagnose and treat high blood pressure, she said. A new study by Dr. Green and other researchers at Kaiser Permanente showed that giving patients the chance to monitor their blood pressure at home could help get more reliable measurements.

Nearly one in four adults in the United States with high blood pressure are unaware they have the condition and are not getting treatment to control it. Without treatment, the condition can cause heart attacks, strokes, kidney damage, and other potentially life-threatening health problems.

Current guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure recommend that patients whose pressure is high in the clinic get tested again to confirm the results. While the guidelines recommend home monitoring before diagnosing high blood pressure, research shows that doctors continue to measure blood pressure in their clinics for the second reading.

In their study, Dr. Green and colleagues found that home readings were more accurate than measurements taken in clinics or at pharmacy kiosks.

“Home blood pressure monitoring was a better option, because it was more accurate” than clinic blood pressure readings, Green said. A companion study found that patients preferred taking their blood pressure at home.

For their study, Dr. Green’s group used Kaiser’s electronic health record system to identify people at high risk for high blood pressure based on a recent clinic visit. They then randomly assigned the participants to get their follow-up blood pressure readings in the clinic, at home, or at kiosks in clinics or pharmacies.

Each participant also received a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM). These devices, which people must wear continuously for 24 hours, have cuffs that inflate every 20-0 minutes during the day and every 30-60 minutes at night. Although ABPMs are the preferred test for accurately diagnosing high blood pressure, they aren’t available for widespread use.

The Kaiser researchers found that people’s systolic BP readings at clinics were generally lower than their ABPM measurements, leading to undiagnosed high BP in more than 50% of cases. Kiosk readings were much higher than the ABPM measurements and tended to overdiagnose high BP.
 

The value of home monitoring

Branden Villavaso, a 48-year-old attorney in New Orleans who was diagnosed with high BP at age 32, attributes his condition to genetics. He says an at-home monitor plus the occasional use of an ABPM finally provided his doctor with an accurate assessment of his condition.

Thanks to this aggressive approach, over the past 3 years, Mr. Villavaso’s diastolic reading has dropped from a previous range of between 90 and 100 to a healthier but not quite ideal value of about 80. Meanwhile, his systolic pressure has dropped to about 120, well below the goal of 130.

Mr. Villavaso said his doctor has relied on the averages of the BP readings to tailor his medication, and he also credited his wife, Chloe, a clinical nurse specialist, for monitoring his progress.

While previous studies have found similar benefits for measuring BP at home, Dr. Green said the latest study may offer the most powerful evidence to date because of the large number of people who took part, the involvement of primary care clinics, and the use of real-world health care professionals to take measurements instead of people who usually do health research. She said this study is the first to compare kiosk and ABPM results.

“The study indicates that assisting patients with getting access to valid blood pressure readings so they can measure their blood pressure at home will give a better picture of the true burden of [high BP],” said Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, a cardiologist at Tulane University, New Orleans.

He recommended patients select a home monitoring device from www.validatebp.org, a noncommercial website that lists home BP systems that have proven to be accurate.

“We know that [high blood pressure] is the most common and powerful cause of heart disease and death,” Dr. Ferdinand said. “Patients are pleased to participate in shared decision-making and actively assist in the control of a potentially deadly disease.”

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

Everyone’s been there. You’ve arrived for your scheduled doctor’s office visit and the first order of real business is the reunion with the blood pressure cuff. The first reading might be high. A second reading looks a bit better – or maybe a bit worse. Which one’s right?

The answer: Perhaps neither. Individual measures of blood pressure are not as accurate as taking multiple readings over a day and averaging them.

Blood pressure varies throughout the day – by about 30 points for systolic pressure, or the pressure when the heart beats – and one or two measurements in a doctor’s office may not accurately reflect the average figure, said Beverly B. Green, MD, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.

Average blood pressure reading is the only measurement on which a doctor can accurately diagnose and treat high blood pressure, she said. A new study by Dr. Green and other researchers at Kaiser Permanente showed that giving patients the chance to monitor their blood pressure at home could help get more reliable measurements.

Nearly one in four adults in the United States with high blood pressure are unaware they have the condition and are not getting treatment to control it. Without treatment, the condition can cause heart attacks, strokes, kidney damage, and other potentially life-threatening health problems.

Current guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure recommend that patients whose pressure is high in the clinic get tested again to confirm the results. While the guidelines recommend home monitoring before diagnosing high blood pressure, research shows that doctors continue to measure blood pressure in their clinics for the second reading.

In their study, Dr. Green and colleagues found that home readings were more accurate than measurements taken in clinics or at pharmacy kiosks.

“Home blood pressure monitoring was a better option, because it was more accurate” than clinic blood pressure readings, Green said. A companion study found that patients preferred taking their blood pressure at home.

For their study, Dr. Green’s group used Kaiser’s electronic health record system to identify people at high risk for high blood pressure based on a recent clinic visit. They then randomly assigned the participants to get their follow-up blood pressure readings in the clinic, at home, or at kiosks in clinics or pharmacies.

Each participant also received a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM). These devices, which people must wear continuously for 24 hours, have cuffs that inflate every 20-0 minutes during the day and every 30-60 minutes at night. Although ABPMs are the preferred test for accurately diagnosing high blood pressure, they aren’t available for widespread use.

The Kaiser researchers found that people’s systolic BP readings at clinics were generally lower than their ABPM measurements, leading to undiagnosed high BP in more than 50% of cases. Kiosk readings were much higher than the ABPM measurements and tended to overdiagnose high BP.
 

The value of home monitoring

Branden Villavaso, a 48-year-old attorney in New Orleans who was diagnosed with high BP at age 32, attributes his condition to genetics. He says an at-home monitor plus the occasional use of an ABPM finally provided his doctor with an accurate assessment of his condition.

Thanks to this aggressive approach, over the past 3 years, Mr. Villavaso’s diastolic reading has dropped from a previous range of between 90 and 100 to a healthier but not quite ideal value of about 80. Meanwhile, his systolic pressure has dropped to about 120, well below the goal of 130.

Mr. Villavaso said his doctor has relied on the averages of the BP readings to tailor his medication, and he also credited his wife, Chloe, a clinical nurse specialist, for monitoring his progress.

While previous studies have found similar benefits for measuring BP at home, Dr. Green said the latest study may offer the most powerful evidence to date because of the large number of people who took part, the involvement of primary care clinics, and the use of real-world health care professionals to take measurements instead of people who usually do health research. She said this study is the first to compare kiosk and ABPM results.

“The study indicates that assisting patients with getting access to valid blood pressure readings so they can measure their blood pressure at home will give a better picture of the true burden of [high BP],” said Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, a cardiologist at Tulane University, New Orleans.

He recommended patients select a home monitoring device from www.validatebp.org, a noncommercial website that lists home BP systems that have proven to be accurate.

“We know that [high blood pressure] is the most common and powerful cause of heart disease and death,” Dr. Ferdinand said. “Patients are pleased to participate in shared decision-making and actively assist in the control of a potentially deadly disease.”

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

Everyone’s been there. You’ve arrived for your scheduled doctor’s office visit and the first order of real business is the reunion with the blood pressure cuff. The first reading might be high. A second reading looks a bit better – or maybe a bit worse. Which one’s right?

The answer: Perhaps neither. Individual measures of blood pressure are not as accurate as taking multiple readings over a day and averaging them.

Blood pressure varies throughout the day – by about 30 points for systolic pressure, or the pressure when the heart beats – and one or two measurements in a doctor’s office may not accurately reflect the average figure, said Beverly B. Green, MD, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.

Average blood pressure reading is the only measurement on which a doctor can accurately diagnose and treat high blood pressure, she said. A new study by Dr. Green and other researchers at Kaiser Permanente showed that giving patients the chance to monitor their blood pressure at home could help get more reliable measurements.

Nearly one in four adults in the United States with high blood pressure are unaware they have the condition and are not getting treatment to control it. Without treatment, the condition can cause heart attacks, strokes, kidney damage, and other potentially life-threatening health problems.

Current guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure recommend that patients whose pressure is high in the clinic get tested again to confirm the results. While the guidelines recommend home monitoring before diagnosing high blood pressure, research shows that doctors continue to measure blood pressure in their clinics for the second reading.

In their study, Dr. Green and colleagues found that home readings were more accurate than measurements taken in clinics or at pharmacy kiosks.

“Home blood pressure monitoring was a better option, because it was more accurate” than clinic blood pressure readings, Green said. A companion study found that patients preferred taking their blood pressure at home.

For their study, Dr. Green’s group used Kaiser’s electronic health record system to identify people at high risk for high blood pressure based on a recent clinic visit. They then randomly assigned the participants to get their follow-up blood pressure readings in the clinic, at home, or at kiosks in clinics or pharmacies.

Each participant also received a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM). These devices, which people must wear continuously for 24 hours, have cuffs that inflate every 20-0 minutes during the day and every 30-60 minutes at night. Although ABPMs are the preferred test for accurately diagnosing high blood pressure, they aren’t available for widespread use.

The Kaiser researchers found that people’s systolic BP readings at clinics were generally lower than their ABPM measurements, leading to undiagnosed high BP in more than 50% of cases. Kiosk readings were much higher than the ABPM measurements and tended to overdiagnose high BP.
 

The value of home monitoring

Branden Villavaso, a 48-year-old attorney in New Orleans who was diagnosed with high BP at age 32, attributes his condition to genetics. He says an at-home monitor plus the occasional use of an ABPM finally provided his doctor with an accurate assessment of his condition.

Thanks to this aggressive approach, over the past 3 years, Mr. Villavaso’s diastolic reading has dropped from a previous range of between 90 and 100 to a healthier but not quite ideal value of about 80. Meanwhile, his systolic pressure has dropped to about 120, well below the goal of 130.

Mr. Villavaso said his doctor has relied on the averages of the BP readings to tailor his medication, and he also credited his wife, Chloe, a clinical nurse specialist, for monitoring his progress.

While previous studies have found similar benefits for measuring BP at home, Dr. Green said the latest study may offer the most powerful evidence to date because of the large number of people who took part, the involvement of primary care clinics, and the use of real-world health care professionals to take measurements instead of people who usually do health research. She said this study is the first to compare kiosk and ABPM results.

“The study indicates that assisting patients with getting access to valid blood pressure readings so they can measure their blood pressure at home will give a better picture of the true burden of [high BP],” said Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, a cardiologist at Tulane University, New Orleans.

He recommended patients select a home monitoring device from www.validatebp.org, a noncommercial website that lists home BP systems that have proven to be accurate.

“We know that [high blood pressure] is the most common and powerful cause of heart disease and death,” Dr. Ferdinand said. “Patients are pleased to participate in shared decision-making and actively assist in the control of a potentially deadly disease.”

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

Earlier menopause appears to be associated with a higher risk of dementia, and earlier onset of dementia, compared with menopause at normal age or later, according to a large study.

“Being aware of this increased risk can help women practice strategies to prevent dementia and to work with their physicians to closely monitor their cognitive status as they age,” study investigator Wenting Hao, MD, with Shandong University, Jinan, China, says in a news release.

The findings were presented in an e-poster March 1 at the Epidemiology, Prevention, Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

UK Biobank data

Dr. Hao and colleagues examined health data for 153,291 women who were 60 years old on average when they became participants in the UK Biobank.

Age at menopause was categorized as premature (younger than age 40), early (40 to 44 years), reference (45 to 51), 52 to 55 years, and 55+ years.

Compared with women who entered menopause around age 50 years (reference), women who experienced premature menopause were 35% more likely to develop some type of dementia later in life (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.91).

Women with early menopause were also more likely to develop early-onset dementia, that is, before age 65 (HR, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.72).

Women who entered menopause later (at age 52+) had dementia risk similar to women who entered menopause at the average age of 50 to 51 years.

The results were adjusted for relevant cofactors, including age at last exam, race, educational level, cigarette and alcohol use, body mass index, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, income, and leisure and physical activities.

Blame it on estrogen?

Reduced estrogen levels may be a factor in the possible connection between early menopause and dementia, Dr. Hao and her colleagues say.

Estradiol plays a key role in a range of neurological functions, so the reduction of endogenous estrogen at menopause may aggravate brain changes related to neurodegenerative disease and speed up progression of dementia, they explain.

“We know that the lack of estrogen over the long term enhances oxidative stress, which may increase brain aging and lead to cognitive impairment,” Dr. Hao adds.

Limitations of the study include reliance on self-reported information about age at menopause onset.

Also, the researchers did not evaluate dementia rates in women who had a naturally occurring early menopause separate from the women with surgery-induced menopause, which may affect the results.

Finally, the data used for this study included mostly White women living in the U.K. and may not generalize to other populations.
 

Supportive evidence, critical area of research

The U.K. study supports results of a previously reported Kaiser Permanente study, which showed women who entered menopause at age 45 or younger were at 28% greater dementia risk, compared with women who experienced menopause after age 45.

Reached for comment, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, noted that nearly two-thirds of Americans with Alzheimer’s are women.

“We know Alzheimer’s and other dementias impact a greater number of women than men, but we don’t know why,” she told this news organization.

“Lifelong differences in women may affect their risk or affect what is contributing to their underlying biology of the disease, and we need more research to better understand what may be these contributing factors,” said Dr. Snyder.

“Reproductive history is one critical area being studied. The physical and hormonal changes that occur during menopause – as well as other hormonal changes throughout life – are considerable, and it’s important to understand what impact, if any, these changes may have on the brain,” Dr. Snyder added.

“The potential link between reproduction history and brain health is intriguing, but much more research in this area is needed to understand these links,” she said.

The study was funded by the Start-up Foundation for Scientific Research at Shandong University. Dr. Hao and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier menopause appears to be associated with a higher risk of dementia, and earlier onset of dementia, compared with menopause at normal age or later, according to a large study.

“Being aware of this increased risk can help women practice strategies to prevent dementia and to work with their physicians to closely monitor their cognitive status as they age,” study investigator Wenting Hao, MD, with Shandong University, Jinan, China, says in a news release.

The findings were presented in an e-poster March 1 at the Epidemiology, Prevention, Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

UK Biobank data

Dr. Hao and colleagues examined health data for 153,291 women who were 60 years old on average when they became participants in the UK Biobank.

Age at menopause was categorized as premature (younger than age 40), early (40 to 44 years), reference (45 to 51), 52 to 55 years, and 55+ years.

Compared with women who entered menopause around age 50 years (reference), women who experienced premature menopause were 35% more likely to develop some type of dementia later in life (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.91).

Women with early menopause were also more likely to develop early-onset dementia, that is, before age 65 (HR, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.72).

Women who entered menopause later (at age 52+) had dementia risk similar to women who entered menopause at the average age of 50 to 51 years.

The results were adjusted for relevant cofactors, including age at last exam, race, educational level, cigarette and alcohol use, body mass index, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, income, and leisure and physical activities.

Blame it on estrogen?

Reduced estrogen levels may be a factor in the possible connection between early menopause and dementia, Dr. Hao and her colleagues say.

Estradiol plays a key role in a range of neurological functions, so the reduction of endogenous estrogen at menopause may aggravate brain changes related to neurodegenerative disease and speed up progression of dementia, they explain.

“We know that the lack of estrogen over the long term enhances oxidative stress, which may increase brain aging and lead to cognitive impairment,” Dr. Hao adds.

Limitations of the study include reliance on self-reported information about age at menopause onset.

Also, the researchers did not evaluate dementia rates in women who had a naturally occurring early menopause separate from the women with surgery-induced menopause, which may affect the results.

Finally, the data used for this study included mostly White women living in the U.K. and may not generalize to other populations.
 

Supportive evidence, critical area of research

The U.K. study supports results of a previously reported Kaiser Permanente study, which showed women who entered menopause at age 45 or younger were at 28% greater dementia risk, compared with women who experienced menopause after age 45.

Reached for comment, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, noted that nearly two-thirds of Americans with Alzheimer’s are women.

“We know Alzheimer’s and other dementias impact a greater number of women than men, but we don’t know why,” she told this news organization.

“Lifelong differences in women may affect their risk or affect what is contributing to their underlying biology of the disease, and we need more research to better understand what may be these contributing factors,” said Dr. Snyder.

“Reproductive history is one critical area being studied. The physical and hormonal changes that occur during menopause – as well as other hormonal changes throughout life – are considerable, and it’s important to understand what impact, if any, these changes may have on the brain,” Dr. Snyder added.

“The potential link between reproduction history and brain health is intriguing, but much more research in this area is needed to understand these links,” she said.

The study was funded by the Start-up Foundation for Scientific Research at Shandong University. Dr. Hao and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier menopause appears to be associated with a higher risk of dementia, and earlier onset of dementia, compared with menopause at normal age or later, according to a large study.

“Being aware of this increased risk can help women practice strategies to prevent dementia and to work with their physicians to closely monitor their cognitive status as they age,” study investigator Wenting Hao, MD, with Shandong University, Jinan, China, says in a news release.

The findings were presented in an e-poster March 1 at the Epidemiology, Prevention, Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

UK Biobank data

Dr. Hao and colleagues examined health data for 153,291 women who were 60 years old on average when they became participants in the UK Biobank.

Age at menopause was categorized as premature (younger than age 40), early (40 to 44 years), reference (45 to 51), 52 to 55 years, and 55+ years.

Compared with women who entered menopause around age 50 years (reference), women who experienced premature menopause were 35% more likely to develop some type of dementia later in life (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.91).

Women with early menopause were also more likely to develop early-onset dementia, that is, before age 65 (HR, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.72).

Women who entered menopause later (at age 52+) had dementia risk similar to women who entered menopause at the average age of 50 to 51 years.

The results were adjusted for relevant cofactors, including age at last exam, race, educational level, cigarette and alcohol use, body mass index, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, income, and leisure and physical activities.

Blame it on estrogen?

Reduced estrogen levels may be a factor in the possible connection between early menopause and dementia, Dr. Hao and her colleagues say.

Estradiol plays a key role in a range of neurological functions, so the reduction of endogenous estrogen at menopause may aggravate brain changes related to neurodegenerative disease and speed up progression of dementia, they explain.

“We know that the lack of estrogen over the long term enhances oxidative stress, which may increase brain aging and lead to cognitive impairment,” Dr. Hao adds.

Limitations of the study include reliance on self-reported information about age at menopause onset.

Also, the researchers did not evaluate dementia rates in women who had a naturally occurring early menopause separate from the women with surgery-induced menopause, which may affect the results.

Finally, the data used for this study included mostly White women living in the U.K. and may not generalize to other populations.
 

Supportive evidence, critical area of research

The U.K. study supports results of a previously reported Kaiser Permanente study, which showed women who entered menopause at age 45 or younger were at 28% greater dementia risk, compared with women who experienced menopause after age 45.

Reached for comment, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, noted that nearly two-thirds of Americans with Alzheimer’s are women.

“We know Alzheimer’s and other dementias impact a greater number of women than men, but we don’t know why,” she told this news organization.

“Lifelong differences in women may affect their risk or affect what is contributing to their underlying biology of the disease, and we need more research to better understand what may be these contributing factors,” said Dr. Snyder.

“Reproductive history is one critical area being studied. The physical and hormonal changes that occur during menopause – as well as other hormonal changes throughout life – are considerable, and it’s important to understand what impact, if any, these changes may have on the brain,” Dr. Snyder added.

“The potential link between reproduction history and brain health is intriguing, but much more research in this area is needed to understand these links,” she said.

The study was funded by the Start-up Foundation for Scientific Research at Shandong University. Dr. Hao and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

Strong new evidence on the need to use an appropriately sized cuff in blood pressure measurement has come from the cross-sectional randomized trial Cuff(SZ).

The study found that in people in whom a small adult cuff was appropriate, systolic BP readings were on average 3.6 mm Hg lower when a regular adult size cuff was used.

However, systolic readings were on average 4.8 mm Hg higher when a regular cuff was used in people who required a large adult cuff and 19.5 mm Hg higher in those needing an extra-large cuff based on their mid-arm circumference.

The diastolic readings followed a similar pattern (-1.3 mm Hg, 1.8 mm Hg, and 7.4 mm Hg, respectively).

“We found that using the regular adult cuff in all individuals had striking differences in blood pressure,” lead author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization. “And that has a lot of clinical implications.”

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

Strong new evidence on the need to use an appropriately sized cuff in blood pressure measurement has come from the cross-sectional randomized trial Cuff(SZ).

The study found that in people in whom a small adult cuff was appropriate, systolic BP readings were on average 3.6 mm Hg lower when a regular adult size cuff was used.

However, systolic readings were on average 4.8 mm Hg higher when a regular cuff was used in people who required a large adult cuff and 19.5 mm Hg higher in those needing an extra-large cuff based on their mid-arm circumference.

The diastolic readings followed a similar pattern (-1.3 mm Hg, 1.8 mm Hg, and 7.4 mm Hg, respectively).

“We found that using the regular adult cuff in all individuals had striking differences in blood pressure,” lead author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization. “And that has a lot of clinical implications.”

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

Strong new evidence on the need to use an appropriately sized cuff in blood pressure measurement has come from the cross-sectional randomized trial Cuff(SZ).

The study found that in people in whom a small adult cuff was appropriate, systolic BP readings were on average 3.6 mm Hg lower when a regular adult size cuff was used.

However, systolic readings were on average 4.8 mm Hg higher when a regular cuff was used in people who required a large adult cuff and 19.5 mm Hg higher in those needing an extra-large cuff based on their mid-arm circumference.

The diastolic readings followed a similar pattern (-1.3 mm Hg, 1.8 mm Hg, and 7.4 mm Hg, respectively).

“We found that using the regular adult cuff in all individuals had striking differences in blood pressure,” lead author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization. “And that has a lot of clinical implications.”

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