Hypertension

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

The optimal first step to address mild to moderately elevated blood pressure and cholesterol in otherwise healthy adults is a “prescription” to sit less and move more, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“The current American Heart Association guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure and cholesterol recognize that otherwise healthy individuals with mildly or moderately elevated levels of these cardiovascular risk factors should actively attempt to reduce these risks,” Bethany Barone Gibbs, PhD, chair of the statement writing group, said in an AHA news release.

“The first treatment strategy for many of these patients should be healthy lifestyle changes beginning with increasing physical activity,” said Dr. Gibbs, from the University of Pittsburgh.

The 12-page AHA scientific statement – Physical Activity as a Critical Component of First-Line Treatment for Elevated Blood Pressure or Cholesterol: Who, What, and How? – was published online June 2 in Hypertension.
 

Every little bit helps

According to the AHA, about 21% of American adults have systolic blood pressure between 120 and 139 mm Hg, or diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89 mm Hg, which meets the criteria for lifestyle-only treatment for elevated BP outlined in the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AHA high blood pressure guideline.

In addition, about 28% of American adults have LDL cholesterol above 70 mg/dL and otherwise meet the low-risk criteria for heart disease or stroke. These individuals would meet the criteria for lifestyle-only treatment outlined in the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines, which include increased physical activity, weight loss, better diet, smoking cessation, and moderating alcohol intake.

“Of the recommended lifestyle changes, increasing physical activity has extensive benefits, including improving both blood pressure and blood cholesterol, that are comparable, superior, or complementary to other healthy lifestyle changes,” the writing group says.

“Physical activity assessment and prescription are an excellent lifestyle behavior treatment option for all patients, including for the large population of mild-moderate-risk patients with elevated blood pressure and blood cholesterol,” they note.

Research has shown that increasing physical activity can lead to clinically meaningful 3 or 4 mm Hg reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and 3 to 6 mg/dL decreases in LDL cholesterol, the authors point out.

Previous evidence also shows that physically active people have a 21% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease and a 36% lower risk for death from cardiovascular diseases than those who are not physically active.

Physical activity also has benefits beyond heart health, including a lower risk for some cancers; improved bone, brain, and mental health; and better sleep, they note.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2018 physical activity guidelines advise Americans to log 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity each week and to participate in two or more weekly strength training sessions.

However, there is no minimum amount of time to receive benefits from physical activity.

“Every little bit of activity is better than none. Even small initial increases of 5 to 10 minutes a day can yield health benefits,” Dr. Gibbs said.
 

Translational advice for clinicians

The AHA statement encourages clinicians to ask patients about their physical activity at every interaction; provide ideas and resources to help patients improve and sustain regular life-long physical activity; and encourage and celebrate small increases in activity, such as walking more or taking the stairs, to help with motivation.

“In our world where physical activity is increasingly engineered out of our lives and the overwhelming default is to sit – and even more so now as the nation and the world is practicing quarantine and isolation to reduce the spread of coronavirus – the message that we must be relentless in our pursuit to ‘sit less and move more’ throughout the day is more important than ever,” said Dr. Gibbs.

The statement was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Clinical Cardiology.

This research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

The optimal first step to address mild to moderately elevated blood pressure and cholesterol in otherwise healthy adults is a “prescription” to sit less and move more, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“The current American Heart Association guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure and cholesterol recognize that otherwise healthy individuals with mildly or moderately elevated levels of these cardiovascular risk factors should actively attempt to reduce these risks,” Bethany Barone Gibbs, PhD, chair of the statement writing group, said in an AHA news release.

“The first treatment strategy for many of these patients should be healthy lifestyle changes beginning with increasing physical activity,” said Dr. Gibbs, from the University of Pittsburgh.

The 12-page AHA scientific statement – Physical Activity as a Critical Component of First-Line Treatment for Elevated Blood Pressure or Cholesterol: Who, What, and How? – was published online June 2 in Hypertension.
 

Every little bit helps

According to the AHA, about 21% of American adults have systolic blood pressure between 120 and 139 mm Hg, or diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89 mm Hg, which meets the criteria for lifestyle-only treatment for elevated BP outlined in the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AHA high blood pressure guideline.

In addition, about 28% of American adults have LDL cholesterol above 70 mg/dL and otherwise meet the low-risk criteria for heart disease or stroke. These individuals would meet the criteria for lifestyle-only treatment outlined in the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines, which include increased physical activity, weight loss, better diet, smoking cessation, and moderating alcohol intake.

“Of the recommended lifestyle changes, increasing physical activity has extensive benefits, including improving both blood pressure and blood cholesterol, that are comparable, superior, or complementary to other healthy lifestyle changes,” the writing group says.

“Physical activity assessment and prescription are an excellent lifestyle behavior treatment option for all patients, including for the large population of mild-moderate-risk patients with elevated blood pressure and blood cholesterol,” they note.

Research has shown that increasing physical activity can lead to clinically meaningful 3 or 4 mm Hg reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and 3 to 6 mg/dL decreases in LDL cholesterol, the authors point out.

Previous evidence also shows that physically active people have a 21% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease and a 36% lower risk for death from cardiovascular diseases than those who are not physically active.

Physical activity also has benefits beyond heart health, including a lower risk for some cancers; improved bone, brain, and mental health; and better sleep, they note.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2018 physical activity guidelines advise Americans to log 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity each week and to participate in two or more weekly strength training sessions.

However, there is no minimum amount of time to receive benefits from physical activity.

“Every little bit of activity is better than none. Even small initial increases of 5 to 10 minutes a day can yield health benefits,” Dr. Gibbs said.
 

Translational advice for clinicians

The AHA statement encourages clinicians to ask patients about their physical activity at every interaction; provide ideas and resources to help patients improve and sustain regular life-long physical activity; and encourage and celebrate small increases in activity, such as walking more or taking the stairs, to help with motivation.

“In our world where physical activity is increasingly engineered out of our lives and the overwhelming default is to sit – and even more so now as the nation and the world is practicing quarantine and isolation to reduce the spread of coronavirus – the message that we must be relentless in our pursuit to ‘sit less and move more’ throughout the day is more important than ever,” said Dr. Gibbs.

The statement was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Clinical Cardiology.

This research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

The optimal first step to address mild to moderately elevated blood pressure and cholesterol in otherwise healthy adults is a “prescription” to sit less and move more, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“The current American Heart Association guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure and cholesterol recognize that otherwise healthy individuals with mildly or moderately elevated levels of these cardiovascular risk factors should actively attempt to reduce these risks,” Bethany Barone Gibbs, PhD, chair of the statement writing group, said in an AHA news release.

“The first treatment strategy for many of these patients should be healthy lifestyle changes beginning with increasing physical activity,” said Dr. Gibbs, from the University of Pittsburgh.

The 12-page AHA scientific statement – Physical Activity as a Critical Component of First-Line Treatment for Elevated Blood Pressure or Cholesterol: Who, What, and How? – was published online June 2 in Hypertension.
 

Every little bit helps

According to the AHA, about 21% of American adults have systolic blood pressure between 120 and 139 mm Hg, or diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89 mm Hg, which meets the criteria for lifestyle-only treatment for elevated BP outlined in the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AHA high blood pressure guideline.

In addition, about 28% of American adults have LDL cholesterol above 70 mg/dL and otherwise meet the low-risk criteria for heart disease or stroke. These individuals would meet the criteria for lifestyle-only treatment outlined in the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines, which include increased physical activity, weight loss, better diet, smoking cessation, and moderating alcohol intake.

“Of the recommended lifestyle changes, increasing physical activity has extensive benefits, including improving both blood pressure and blood cholesterol, that are comparable, superior, or complementary to other healthy lifestyle changes,” the writing group says.

“Physical activity assessment and prescription are an excellent lifestyle behavior treatment option for all patients, including for the large population of mild-moderate-risk patients with elevated blood pressure and blood cholesterol,” they note.

Research has shown that increasing physical activity can lead to clinically meaningful 3 or 4 mm Hg reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and 3 to 6 mg/dL decreases in LDL cholesterol, the authors point out.

Previous evidence also shows that physically active people have a 21% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease and a 36% lower risk for death from cardiovascular diseases than those who are not physically active.

Physical activity also has benefits beyond heart health, including a lower risk for some cancers; improved bone, brain, and mental health; and better sleep, they note.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2018 physical activity guidelines advise Americans to log 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity each week and to participate in two or more weekly strength training sessions.

However, there is no minimum amount of time to receive benefits from physical activity.

“Every little bit of activity is better than none. Even small initial increases of 5 to 10 minutes a day can yield health benefits,” Dr. Gibbs said.
 

Translational advice for clinicians

The AHA statement encourages clinicians to ask patients about their physical activity at every interaction; provide ideas and resources to help patients improve and sustain regular life-long physical activity; and encourage and celebrate small increases in activity, such as walking more or taking the stairs, to help with motivation.

“In our world where physical activity is increasingly engineered out of our lives and the overwhelming default is to sit – and even more so now as the nation and the world is practicing quarantine and isolation to reduce the spread of coronavirus – the message that we must be relentless in our pursuit to ‘sit less and move more’ throughout the day is more important than ever,” said Dr. Gibbs.

The statement was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Clinical Cardiology.

This research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

Hemoglobin A1c above 5% but below the prediabetes cutoff of 5.5% is an additional potential biomarker of subclinical atherosclerosis in people with low cardiovascular disease risk, according to an analysis of data on almost 4,000 middle-aged individuals.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

“If one looks at the incidence of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, we are not talking small numbers,” senior study author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “We are talking about between 45% and 82% of this middle-age population that already has atherosclerotic disease subclinically.

“Actually,” he added, “the disease was extensive in 5%-30% of these individuals of middle age.”

The study included 3,973 participants from the Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis study who did not have diabetes. A1c showed an association with the prevalence and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by two-dimensional ultrasound and coronary artery calcium score (CACS; P < .001). For example, those with A1c above 6.1% (133 participants) had a 33.1% rate of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, compared with 4.9% for those with A1c below 4.8% (243), the lowest-score group in the study.

Patients in the subprediabetes band, between 5.0% and 5.5%, had significantly higher rates of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis than did the lowest-score group: 8% in the 4.9%-5.0% group (375 participants); 9.9% in the 5.1%-5.2% range (687); 10.3% in the 5.3%-5.4% group (928); and 11.5% in the 5.5%-5.6% group (842).

Those in the 5.1%-5.2% and 5/3%-5.4% A1c groups had a 27% greater chance of having subclinical atherosclerosis, while those in the 5.5%-5.6% group had a 36% greater risk, according to an odds ratio analysis adjusted for established cardiovascular risk factors. The risks were even higher for patients with prediabetes, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A call for earlier intervention

Notably, the study found that fasting plasma glucose testing did not yield a similar association between A1c and atherosclerosis.

“The message is that we all talk about people when they are close to the development of cardiovascular events, and here we are talking about people who we should pay attention to much earlier,” said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation in Madrid, where the observational study originated said. “People should be sensitized to HbA1c much more than they would’ve been in the past, and I think this study actually validates that.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, noted in an interview that these findings support the utility of A1c for predicting CVD risk.

“I think more and more we should be ordering a HbA1c” during routine physical exams, Dr. Ballantyne said. “You don’t have to be obese to get it; there are lots of people, maybe they’re slightly overweight. It’s a reasonable test to be getting when you get to middle age and older to get an idea for assessing for both developing diabetes and also the presence of atherosclerosis and the risk for having cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center in Houston, coauthored an editorial comment on the study.

Clinicians typically start to manage CVD and diabetes risk “late in the process,” Dr. Ballantyne said. This study suggested that earlier use of antidiabetes therapies, namely peptide-1 agonists and semisynthetic glucagon-like peptide-2 inhibitors, may be warranted in patients with intermediate risk of CVD.

“It’s just more data for the rationale that, perhaps we could end up doing trials to show we can take high-risk people and prevent them from getting both heart disease and diabetes,” Dr. Ballantyne added. “Could we start a little earlier with better precision?”

These finding don’t yet call for a change in how cardiologists and endocrinologists manage patients on the cusp of prediabetes, said Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of Hollywood, Fla., and a professor at the University of Miami. “The endpoint of subclinical atherosclerosis does not necessarily translate into the harder endpoint of CVD events, although there is certainly reason to believe it does,” he said in an interview, noting that he’s often used CACS to stratify atherosclerotic CVD risk in patients.

Hemoglobin A1c above 5% but below the prediabetes cutoff of 5.5% is an additional potential biomarker of subclinical atherosclerosis in people with low cardiovascular disease risk, according to an analysis of data on almost 4,000 middle-aged individuals.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

“If one looks at the incidence of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, we are not talking small numbers,” senior study author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “We are talking about between 45% and 82% of this middle-age population that already has atherosclerotic disease subclinically.

“Actually,” he added, “the disease was extensive in 5%-30% of these individuals of middle age.”

The study included 3,973 participants from the Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis study who did not have diabetes. A1c showed an association with the prevalence and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by two-dimensional ultrasound and coronary artery calcium score (CACS; P < .001). For example, those with A1c above 6.1% (133 participants) had a 33.1% rate of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, compared with 4.9% for those with A1c below 4.8% (243), the lowest-score group in the study.

Patients in the subprediabetes band, between 5.0% and 5.5%, had significantly higher rates of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis than did the lowest-score group: 8% in the 4.9%-5.0% group (375 participants); 9.9% in the 5.1%-5.2% range (687); 10.3% in the 5.3%-5.4% group (928); and 11.5% in the 5.5%-5.6% group (842).

Those in the 5.1%-5.2% and 5/3%-5.4% A1c groups had a 27% greater chance of having subclinical atherosclerosis, while those in the 5.5%-5.6% group had a 36% greater risk, according to an odds ratio analysis adjusted for established cardiovascular risk factors. The risks were even higher for patients with prediabetes, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A call for earlier intervention

Notably, the study found that fasting plasma glucose testing did not yield a similar association between A1c and atherosclerosis.

“The message is that we all talk about people when they are close to the development of cardiovascular events, and here we are talking about people who we should pay attention to much earlier,” said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation in Madrid, where the observational study originated said. “People should be sensitized to HbA1c much more than they would’ve been in the past, and I think this study actually validates that.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, noted in an interview that these findings support the utility of A1c for predicting CVD risk.

“I think more and more we should be ordering a HbA1c” during routine physical exams, Dr. Ballantyne said. “You don’t have to be obese to get it; there are lots of people, maybe they’re slightly overweight. It’s a reasonable test to be getting when you get to middle age and older to get an idea for assessing for both developing diabetes and also the presence of atherosclerosis and the risk for having cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center in Houston, coauthored an editorial comment on the study.

Clinicians typically start to manage CVD and diabetes risk “late in the process,” Dr. Ballantyne said. This study suggested that earlier use of antidiabetes therapies, namely peptide-1 agonists and semisynthetic glucagon-like peptide-2 inhibitors, may be warranted in patients with intermediate risk of CVD.

“It’s just more data for the rationale that, perhaps we could end up doing trials to show we can take high-risk people and prevent them from getting both heart disease and diabetes,” Dr. Ballantyne added. “Could we start a little earlier with better precision?”

These finding don’t yet call for a change in how cardiologists and endocrinologists manage patients on the cusp of prediabetes, said Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of Hollywood, Fla., and a professor at the University of Miami. “The endpoint of subclinical atherosclerosis does not necessarily translate into the harder endpoint of CVD events, although there is certainly reason to believe it does,” he said in an interview, noting that he’s often used CACS to stratify atherosclerotic CVD risk in patients.

Hemoglobin A1c above 5% but below the prediabetes cutoff of 5.5% is an additional potential biomarker of subclinical atherosclerosis in people with low cardiovascular disease risk, according to an analysis of data on almost 4,000 middle-aged individuals.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

“If one looks at the incidence of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, we are not talking small numbers,” senior study author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “We are talking about between 45% and 82% of this middle-age population that already has atherosclerotic disease subclinically.

“Actually,” he added, “the disease was extensive in 5%-30% of these individuals of middle age.”

The study included 3,973 participants from the Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis study who did not have diabetes. A1c showed an association with the prevalence and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by two-dimensional ultrasound and coronary artery calcium score (CACS; P < .001). For example, those with A1c above 6.1% (133 participants) had a 33.1% rate of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, compared with 4.9% for those with A1c below 4.8% (243), the lowest-score group in the study.

Patients in the subprediabetes band, between 5.0% and 5.5%, had significantly higher rates of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis than did the lowest-score group: 8% in the 4.9%-5.0% group (375 participants); 9.9% in the 5.1%-5.2% range (687); 10.3% in the 5.3%-5.4% group (928); and 11.5% in the 5.5%-5.6% group (842).

Those in the 5.1%-5.2% and 5/3%-5.4% A1c groups had a 27% greater chance of having subclinical atherosclerosis, while those in the 5.5%-5.6% group had a 36% greater risk, according to an odds ratio analysis adjusted for established cardiovascular risk factors. The risks were even higher for patients with prediabetes, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A call for earlier intervention

Notably, the study found that fasting plasma glucose testing did not yield a similar association between A1c and atherosclerosis.

“The message is that we all talk about people when they are close to the development of cardiovascular events, and here we are talking about people who we should pay attention to much earlier,” said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation in Madrid, where the observational study originated said. “People should be sensitized to HbA1c much more than they would’ve been in the past, and I think this study actually validates that.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, noted in an interview that these findings support the utility of A1c for predicting CVD risk.

“I think more and more we should be ordering a HbA1c” during routine physical exams, Dr. Ballantyne said. “You don’t have to be obese to get it; there are lots of people, maybe they’re slightly overweight. It’s a reasonable test to be getting when you get to middle age and older to get an idea for assessing for both developing diabetes and also the presence of atherosclerosis and the risk for having cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center in Houston, coauthored an editorial comment on the study.

Clinicians typically start to manage CVD and diabetes risk “late in the process,” Dr. Ballantyne said. This study suggested that earlier use of antidiabetes therapies, namely peptide-1 agonists and semisynthetic glucagon-like peptide-2 inhibitors, may be warranted in patients with intermediate risk of CVD.

“It’s just more data for the rationale that, perhaps we could end up doing trials to show we can take high-risk people and prevent them from getting both heart disease and diabetes,” Dr. Ballantyne added. “Could we start a little earlier with better precision?”

These finding don’t yet call for a change in how cardiologists and endocrinologists manage patients on the cusp of prediabetes, said Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of Hollywood, Fla., and a professor at the University of Miami. “The endpoint of subclinical atherosclerosis does not necessarily translate into the harder endpoint of CVD events, although there is certainly reason to believe it does,” he said in an interview, noting that he’s often used CACS to stratify atherosclerotic CVD risk in patients.

Taking more steps each day, in short spurts or longer bouts, was associated with a longer life in women older than 60 years, according to data from more than 16,000 participants in the ongoing Women’s Health Study.

The American Heart Association recommends at least 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or a combination of both as fitness guidelines for adults. Walking is a safe and easy way for many adults to follow these guidelines, according to Christopher C. Moore, MS, a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The popularity of step counts reflect that they are simple and objective, and “focusing on steps can help promote an active lifestyle,” he said. Data on the impact of sporadic steps accumulated outside of longer bouts of activity on health outcomes are limited; however, technology advances in the form of fitness apps and wearable devices make it possible for researchers to track and measure the benefits of short periods of activity as well as longer periods.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the AHA, Mr. Moore and colleagues assessed data from women older than 60 years who used wearable step-counting devices to measure their daily steps and walking patterns.

The study population included 16,732 women enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, a longstanding study of heart disease, cancer, and disease prevention among women in the United States. The participants wore waist step counters 4-7 days a week during 2011-2015. The average of the women was 72 years; 96% were non-Hispanic White, and the average BMI was 26 kg/m².

The researchers divided the total number of steps for each study participant into two groups: “bouted” steps, defined as 10 minutes or longer bouts of walking with few interruptions; and “sporadic” steps, defined as short spurts of walking during regular daily activities such as housework, taking the stairs, or walking to or from a car.

A total of 804 deaths occurred during an average of 6 years of follow-up. Each initial increase of 1,000 steps including sporadic or bouted steps was associated with a 28% decrease in death, compared with no daily steps (hazard ratio, 0.72).

Each increasing quartile of sporadic steps was linked with higher total steps per day, Mr. Moore said. “Initial increase in sporadic steps corresponded to the greatest reductions in mortality,” with a HR of 0.69 per additional sporadic steps below 3,200 per day, and the impact on reduced mortality plateaued at about 4,500 sporadic steps per day.

In further analysis, the researchers also found a roughly 32% decrease in death in participants who took more than 2,000 steps daily in uninterrupted bouts (HR, 0.69).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively short follow-up period and number of events, the assessment of steps at a single time point, and the mostly homogeneous population, Mr. Moore noted. Additional research is needed to assess whether the results are generalizable to men, younger women, and diverse racial and ethnic groups.

However, the results may have implications for public health messaging, he emphasized. The message is that, to impact longevity, the total volume of steps is more important than the type of activity through which they are accumulated.

“You can accumulate your steps through longer bouts of purposeful activity or through everyday behaviors such as walking to your car, taking the stairs, and doing housework,” Mr. Moore concluded.

Find a friend, both of you benefit

On the basis of this study and other available evidence, more steps daily are recommended for everyone, Nieca Goldberg, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

“You can increase minutes of walking and frequency of walking,” she said.

Dr. Goldberg emphasized that you don’t need a fancy app or wearable device to up your steps. She offered some tips to help overcome barriers to putting one foot in front of the other. “Take the steps instead of the elevator. Park your car farther from your destination so you can walk.” Also, you can help yourself and help a friend to better health. “Get a walking buddy so you can encourage each other to walk,” Dr. Goldberg added.

Mr. Moore and Dr. Goldberg had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Women’s Health Study is funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the National Cancer Institute. Mr. Moore was funded by a grant from the NHLBI but had no other financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking more steps each day, in short spurts or longer bouts, was associated with a longer life in women older than 60 years, according to data from more than 16,000 participants in the ongoing Women’s Health Study.

The American Heart Association recommends at least 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or a combination of both as fitness guidelines for adults. Walking is a safe and easy way for many adults to follow these guidelines, according to Christopher C. Moore, MS, a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The popularity of step counts reflect that they are simple and objective, and “focusing on steps can help promote an active lifestyle,” he said. Data on the impact of sporadic steps accumulated outside of longer bouts of activity on health outcomes are limited; however, technology advances in the form of fitness apps and wearable devices make it possible for researchers to track and measure the benefits of short periods of activity as well as longer periods.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the AHA, Mr. Moore and colleagues assessed data from women older than 60 years who used wearable step-counting devices to measure their daily steps and walking patterns.

The study population included 16,732 women enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, a longstanding study of heart disease, cancer, and disease prevention among women in the United States. The participants wore waist step counters 4-7 days a week during 2011-2015. The average of the women was 72 years; 96% were non-Hispanic White, and the average BMI was 26 kg/m².

The researchers divided the total number of steps for each study participant into two groups: “bouted” steps, defined as 10 minutes or longer bouts of walking with few interruptions; and “sporadic” steps, defined as short spurts of walking during regular daily activities such as housework, taking the stairs, or walking to or from a car.

A total of 804 deaths occurred during an average of 6 years of follow-up. Each initial increase of 1,000 steps including sporadic or bouted steps was associated with a 28% decrease in death, compared with no daily steps (hazard ratio, 0.72).

Each increasing quartile of sporadic steps was linked with higher total steps per day, Mr. Moore said. “Initial increase in sporadic steps corresponded to the greatest reductions in mortality,” with a HR of 0.69 per additional sporadic steps below 3,200 per day, and the impact on reduced mortality plateaued at about 4,500 sporadic steps per day.

In further analysis, the researchers also found a roughly 32% decrease in death in participants who took more than 2,000 steps daily in uninterrupted bouts (HR, 0.69).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively short follow-up period and number of events, the assessment of steps at a single time point, and the mostly homogeneous population, Mr. Moore noted. Additional research is needed to assess whether the results are generalizable to men, younger women, and diverse racial and ethnic groups.

However, the results may have implications for public health messaging, he emphasized. The message is that, to impact longevity, the total volume of steps is more important than the type of activity through which they are accumulated.

“You can accumulate your steps through longer bouts of purposeful activity or through everyday behaviors such as walking to your car, taking the stairs, and doing housework,” Mr. Moore concluded.

Find a friend, both of you benefit

On the basis of this study and other available evidence, more steps daily are recommended for everyone, Nieca Goldberg, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

“You can increase minutes of walking and frequency of walking,” she said.

Dr. Goldberg emphasized that you don’t need a fancy app or wearable device to up your steps. She offered some tips to help overcome barriers to putting one foot in front of the other. “Take the steps instead of the elevator. Park your car farther from your destination so you can walk.” Also, you can help yourself and help a friend to better health. “Get a walking buddy so you can encourage each other to walk,” Dr. Goldberg added.

Mr. Moore and Dr. Goldberg had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Women’s Health Study is funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the National Cancer Institute. Mr. Moore was funded by a grant from the NHLBI but had no other financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking more steps each day, in short spurts or longer bouts, was associated with a longer life in women older than 60 years, according to data from more than 16,000 participants in the ongoing Women’s Health Study.

The American Heart Association recommends at least 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or a combination of both as fitness guidelines for adults. Walking is a safe and easy way for many adults to follow these guidelines, according to Christopher C. Moore, MS, a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The popularity of step counts reflect that they are simple and objective, and “focusing on steps can help promote an active lifestyle,” he said. Data on the impact of sporadic steps accumulated outside of longer bouts of activity on health outcomes are limited; however, technology advances in the form of fitness apps and wearable devices make it possible for researchers to track and measure the benefits of short periods of activity as well as longer periods.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the AHA, Mr. Moore and colleagues assessed data from women older than 60 years who used wearable step-counting devices to measure their daily steps and walking patterns.

The study population included 16,732 women enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, a longstanding study of heart disease, cancer, and disease prevention among women in the United States. The participants wore waist step counters 4-7 days a week during 2011-2015. The average of the women was 72 years; 96% were non-Hispanic White, and the average BMI was 26 kg/m².

The researchers divided the total number of steps for each study participant into two groups: “bouted” steps, defined as 10 minutes or longer bouts of walking with few interruptions; and “sporadic” steps, defined as short spurts of walking during regular daily activities such as housework, taking the stairs, or walking to or from a car.

A total of 804 deaths occurred during an average of 6 years of follow-up. Each initial increase of 1,000 steps including sporadic or bouted steps was associated with a 28% decrease in death, compared with no daily steps (hazard ratio, 0.72).

Each increasing quartile of sporadic steps was linked with higher total steps per day, Mr. Moore said. “Initial increase in sporadic steps corresponded to the greatest reductions in mortality,” with a HR of 0.69 per additional sporadic steps below 3,200 per day, and the impact on reduced mortality plateaued at about 4,500 sporadic steps per day.

In further analysis, the researchers also found a roughly 32% decrease in death in participants who took more than 2,000 steps daily in uninterrupted bouts (HR, 0.69).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively short follow-up period and number of events, the assessment of steps at a single time point, and the mostly homogeneous population, Mr. Moore noted. Additional research is needed to assess whether the results are generalizable to men, younger women, and diverse racial and ethnic groups.

However, the results may have implications for public health messaging, he emphasized. The message is that, to impact longevity, the total volume of steps is more important than the type of activity through which they are accumulated.

“You can accumulate your steps through longer bouts of purposeful activity or through everyday behaviors such as walking to your car, taking the stairs, and doing housework,” Mr. Moore concluded.

Find a friend, both of you benefit

On the basis of this study and other available evidence, more steps daily are recommended for everyone, Nieca Goldberg, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

“You can increase minutes of walking and frequency of walking,” she said.

Dr. Goldberg emphasized that you don’t need a fancy app or wearable device to up your steps. She offered some tips to help overcome barriers to putting one foot in front of the other. “Take the steps instead of the elevator. Park your car farther from your destination so you can walk.” Also, you can help yourself and help a friend to better health. “Get a walking buddy so you can encourage each other to walk,” Dr. Goldberg added.

Mr. Moore and Dr. Goldberg had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Women’s Health Study is funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the National Cancer Institute. Mr. Moore was funded by a grant from the NHLBI but had no other financial conflicts to disclose.

New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.

“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.

“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.

The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Renewed focus on diet

“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.

“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.

The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).

The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.

Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.

Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.

In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).

Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.

“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.

“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.

“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.

It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.

“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.

In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”

“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.

The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.

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

New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.

“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.

“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.

The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Renewed focus on diet

“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.

“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.

The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).

The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.

Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.

Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.

In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).

Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.

“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.

“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.

“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.

It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.

“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.

In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”

“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.

The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.

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

New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.

“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.

“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.

The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Renewed focus on diet

“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.

“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.

The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).

The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.

Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.

Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.

In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).

Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.

“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.

“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.

“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.

It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.

“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.

In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”

“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.

The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.

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

When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.

“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.

“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.

“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.

The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
 

Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention

For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.

Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.

“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.

For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.

Among the recommendations:

• Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
• Screen for  and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
• Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking  along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
• Consider  or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
• Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
• In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .

The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.

“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.

“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.

“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.

“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.

The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
 

Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention

For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.

Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.

“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.

For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.

Among the recommendations:

• Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
• Screen for  and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
• Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking  along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
• Consider  or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
• Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
• In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .

The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.

“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.

“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.

“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.

“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.

The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
 

Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention

For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.

Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.

“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.

For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.

Among the recommendations:

• Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
• Screen for  and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
• Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking  along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
• Consider  or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
• Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
• In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .

The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.

“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.

Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.

The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m²).

The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.

Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.

Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
 

Small changes may promote prevention

The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.

Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”

The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”

Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.

“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.

Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.

The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m²).

The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.

Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.

Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
 

Small changes may promote prevention

The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.

Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”

The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”

Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.

“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.

Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.

The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m²).

The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.

Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.

Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
 

Small changes may promote prevention

The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.

Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”

The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”

Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.

“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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