Hypertension

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

Although the adverse effects of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) are well known, their association with hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been unclear. Now, a large population-based study shows that the drugs are linked to a 17% overall increased risk for incident hypertension among patients with RA.

Further, when the researchers stratified participants by dose category, they found that doses higher than 7.5 mg were significantly associated with hypertension. Cumulative dosage was not tied to any clear pattern of risk.

The authors, led by Ruth E. Costello, a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis in the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England) concluded that patients who are taking these drugs for the treatment of RA should be monitored for high blood pressure, which is an important but modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, and treated appropriately.

The results of Ms. Costello and colleagues’ study were published June 27 in Rheumatology.

“While fractures associated with these steroid drugs are well studied, hypertension is a side effect that seems to have been less well studied, and yet it is an important cardiovascular risk factor that can be managed,” Ms. Costello said in an interview.

To better understand the possible association, Ms. Costello and colleagues identified 17,760 patients who were newly diagnosed with RA between 1992 and 2019 and were included in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which represents about 7% of the U.K. population. None of the patients had hypertension at initial RA diagnosis. Slightly more than two-thirds were women (68.1%), and the mean age was 56.3 years.

Of those patients, 7,421 (41.8%) were prescribed GCs during postdiagnosis follow-up. Most patients (73%) were followed for at least 2 years.

Patients who used GCs were slightly older than never-users (mean age, 57.7 vs. 55.3 years), were predominantly women, had a history of smoking, and had more comorbidities.

The overall incidence rate (IR) of hypertension was 64.1 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 62.5-65.7). There were 6,243 cases of incident hypertension over 97,547 person-years of follow-up.

Among those exposed to GCs, 1,321 patients developed hypertension, for an IR of 87.6 per 1,000 person-years. Among unexposed participants, the IR for hypertension was 59.7 per 1,000 person-years. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, GC use was associated with a 17% increased risk for hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24).

The researchers noted that 40% of GC users with hypertension were not prescribed an antihypertensive agent at any point during the study. “Whilst some may have been offered lifestyle advice, left untreated this has important implications in terms of addressing modifiable risk factors in an RA population already at increased risk of CV disease,” they wrote.

They noted that cardiovascular disease is a major driver of the elevated mortality risk seen among adults with RA compared with the general population and that recent treatment recommendations address management of cardiovascular risks in these patients.

“There are several routes by which GCs may promote cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, metabolic changes, diabetes, and weight gain. We don’t currently know the extent to which each of these individual mechanisms may be increasing cardiovascular disease,” said Ms. Costello.

“Glucocorticoids increase fluid retention and promote obesity and hypertension,” said Rajat S. Bhatt, MD, a rheumatologist at Prime Rheumatology and Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital in Richmond, Texas, who sees hypertension in GC users in his clinical practice. “So patients need to be monitored for these risk factors,” he said in an interview.

Although hypertension may be a significant factor in the increase in cardiovascular disease in the RA population, Dr. Bhatt said the major driver is likely the intrinsic inflammatory state caused by the disease itself. As to why the GC-hypertension connection has flown under the radar in RA, he added, “That specific link has been difficult to tease out since RA patients are often on multiple medications.”

In regard to the role of dosage, Dr. Bhatt said that hypertension risk increases with higher GC doses, as the U.K. study indicates, and usually subsides when patients stop using GCs.

“Whether the observed dose association is causal or influenced by the underlying disease severity, our results suggest we should be vigilant in patients on all doses of GC, especially higher doses,” Ms. Costello added.

In regard to using drugs that are less cardiotoxic than GCs, Dr. Bhatt said that there are clinical scenarios in which GC therapy is the best choice, so just switching to nonsteroidal drugs is no panacea. “All RA drugs have adverse side effects, and anyway, the goal of rheumatology treatment is always to get patients off corticosteroids as soon as possible,” he said.

Ms. Costello and colleagues noted that their results are consonant with earlier research, including a single-center, cross-sectional study in which less than 6 months’ use of prednisolone at a median dose of 7.5 mg was associated with hypertension. In a German registry study, among patients who received doses of less than 7.5 mg for less than 6 months, there were higher rates of self-reported elevations in blood pressure.

The findings are at odds, however, with a recent matched-cohort study, which also used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. That study found no association between GC use and hypertension.

GCs have come under increasing scrutiny in regard to several diseases. A study published July 7 found that even short-term courses of a few days’ duration entail risks for serious adverse events.

Ms. Costello’s group says that an estimate of GC-related incident hypertension in RA should allow more informed treatment decisions and that their findings highlight the ongoing need to monitor for and address this risk.

The study was supported by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Coauthor William G. Dixon, PhD, has received consultancy fees from Google and Bayer unrelated to this study. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Costello RE et al. Rheumatology. 2020 June 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa209.

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

Although the adverse effects of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) are well known, their association with hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been unclear. Now, a large population-based study shows that the drugs are linked to a 17% overall increased risk for incident hypertension among patients with RA.

Further, when the researchers stratified participants by dose category, they found that doses higher than 7.5 mg were significantly associated with hypertension. Cumulative dosage was not tied to any clear pattern of risk.

The authors, led by Ruth E. Costello, a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis in the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England) concluded that patients who are taking these drugs for the treatment of RA should be monitored for high blood pressure, which is an important but modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, and treated appropriately.

The results of Ms. Costello and colleagues’ study were published June 27 in Rheumatology.

“While fractures associated with these steroid drugs are well studied, hypertension is a side effect that seems to have been less well studied, and yet it is an important cardiovascular risk factor that can be managed,” Ms. Costello said in an interview.

To better understand the possible association, Ms. Costello and colleagues identified 17,760 patients who were newly diagnosed with RA between 1992 and 2019 and were included in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which represents about 7% of the U.K. population. None of the patients had hypertension at initial RA diagnosis. Slightly more than two-thirds were women (68.1%), and the mean age was 56.3 years.

Of those patients, 7,421 (41.8%) were prescribed GCs during postdiagnosis follow-up. Most patients (73%) were followed for at least 2 years.

Patients who used GCs were slightly older than never-users (mean age, 57.7 vs. 55.3 years), were predominantly women, had a history of smoking, and had more comorbidities.

The overall incidence rate (IR) of hypertension was 64.1 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 62.5-65.7). There were 6,243 cases of incident hypertension over 97,547 person-years of follow-up.

Among those exposed to GCs, 1,321 patients developed hypertension, for an IR of 87.6 per 1,000 person-years. Among unexposed participants, the IR for hypertension was 59.7 per 1,000 person-years. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, GC use was associated with a 17% increased risk for hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24).

The researchers noted that 40% of GC users with hypertension were not prescribed an antihypertensive agent at any point during the study. “Whilst some may have been offered lifestyle advice, left untreated this has important implications in terms of addressing modifiable risk factors in an RA population already at increased risk of CV disease,” they wrote.

They noted that cardiovascular disease is a major driver of the elevated mortality risk seen among adults with RA compared with the general population and that recent treatment recommendations address management of cardiovascular risks in these patients.

“There are several routes by which GCs may promote cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, metabolic changes, diabetes, and weight gain. We don’t currently know the extent to which each of these individual mechanisms may be increasing cardiovascular disease,” said Ms. Costello.

“Glucocorticoids increase fluid retention and promote obesity and hypertension,” said Rajat S. Bhatt, MD, a rheumatologist at Prime Rheumatology and Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital in Richmond, Texas, who sees hypertension in GC users in his clinical practice. “So patients need to be monitored for these risk factors,” he said in an interview.

Although hypertension may be a significant factor in the increase in cardiovascular disease in the RA population, Dr. Bhatt said the major driver is likely the intrinsic inflammatory state caused by the disease itself. As to why the GC-hypertension connection has flown under the radar in RA, he added, “That specific link has been difficult to tease out since RA patients are often on multiple medications.”

In regard to the role of dosage, Dr. Bhatt said that hypertension risk increases with higher GC doses, as the U.K. study indicates, and usually subsides when patients stop using GCs.

“Whether the observed dose association is causal or influenced by the underlying disease severity, our results suggest we should be vigilant in patients on all doses of GC, especially higher doses,” Ms. Costello added.

In regard to using drugs that are less cardiotoxic than GCs, Dr. Bhatt said that there are clinical scenarios in which GC therapy is the best choice, so just switching to nonsteroidal drugs is no panacea. “All RA drugs have adverse side effects, and anyway, the goal of rheumatology treatment is always to get patients off corticosteroids as soon as possible,” he said.

Ms. Costello and colleagues noted that their results are consonant with earlier research, including a single-center, cross-sectional study in which less than 6 months’ use of prednisolone at a median dose of 7.5 mg was associated with hypertension. In a German registry study, among patients who received doses of less than 7.5 mg for less than 6 months, there were higher rates of self-reported elevations in blood pressure.

The findings are at odds, however, with a recent matched-cohort study, which also used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. That study found no association between GC use and hypertension.

GCs have come under increasing scrutiny in regard to several diseases. A study published July 7 found that even short-term courses of a few days’ duration entail risks for serious adverse events.

Ms. Costello’s group says that an estimate of GC-related incident hypertension in RA should allow more informed treatment decisions and that their findings highlight the ongoing need to monitor for and address this risk.

The study was supported by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Coauthor William G. Dixon, PhD, has received consultancy fees from Google and Bayer unrelated to this study. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Costello RE et al. Rheumatology. 2020 June 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa209.

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

Although the adverse effects of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) are well known, their association with hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been unclear. Now, a large population-based study shows that the drugs are linked to a 17% overall increased risk for incident hypertension among patients with RA.

Further, when the researchers stratified participants by dose category, they found that doses higher than 7.5 mg were significantly associated with hypertension. Cumulative dosage was not tied to any clear pattern of risk.

The authors, led by Ruth E. Costello, a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis in the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England) concluded that patients who are taking these drugs for the treatment of RA should be monitored for high blood pressure, which is an important but modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, and treated appropriately.

The results of Ms. Costello and colleagues’ study were published June 27 in Rheumatology.

“While fractures associated with these steroid drugs are well studied, hypertension is a side effect that seems to have been less well studied, and yet it is an important cardiovascular risk factor that can be managed,” Ms. Costello said in an interview.

To better understand the possible association, Ms. Costello and colleagues identified 17,760 patients who were newly diagnosed with RA between 1992 and 2019 and were included in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which represents about 7% of the U.K. population. None of the patients had hypertension at initial RA diagnosis. Slightly more than two-thirds were women (68.1%), and the mean age was 56.3 years.

Of those patients, 7,421 (41.8%) were prescribed GCs during postdiagnosis follow-up. Most patients (73%) were followed for at least 2 years.

Patients who used GCs were slightly older than never-users (mean age, 57.7 vs. 55.3 years), were predominantly women, had a history of smoking, and had more comorbidities.

The overall incidence rate (IR) of hypertension was 64.1 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 62.5-65.7). There were 6,243 cases of incident hypertension over 97,547 person-years of follow-up.

Among those exposed to GCs, 1,321 patients developed hypertension, for an IR of 87.6 per 1,000 person-years. Among unexposed participants, the IR for hypertension was 59.7 per 1,000 person-years. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, GC use was associated with a 17% increased risk for hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24).

The researchers noted that 40% of GC users with hypertension were not prescribed an antihypertensive agent at any point during the study. “Whilst some may have been offered lifestyle advice, left untreated this has important implications in terms of addressing modifiable risk factors in an RA population already at increased risk of CV disease,” they wrote.

They noted that cardiovascular disease is a major driver of the elevated mortality risk seen among adults with RA compared with the general population and that recent treatment recommendations address management of cardiovascular risks in these patients.

“There are several routes by which GCs may promote cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, metabolic changes, diabetes, and weight gain. We don’t currently know the extent to which each of these individual mechanisms may be increasing cardiovascular disease,” said Ms. Costello.

“Glucocorticoids increase fluid retention and promote obesity and hypertension,” said Rajat S. Bhatt, MD, a rheumatologist at Prime Rheumatology and Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital in Richmond, Texas, who sees hypertension in GC users in his clinical practice. “So patients need to be monitored for these risk factors,” he said in an interview.

Although hypertension may be a significant factor in the increase in cardiovascular disease in the RA population, Dr. Bhatt said the major driver is likely the intrinsic inflammatory state caused by the disease itself. As to why the GC-hypertension connection has flown under the radar in RA, he added, “That specific link has been difficult to tease out since RA patients are often on multiple medications.”

In regard to the role of dosage, Dr. Bhatt said that hypertension risk increases with higher GC doses, as the U.K. study indicates, and usually subsides when patients stop using GCs.

“Whether the observed dose association is causal or influenced by the underlying disease severity, our results suggest we should be vigilant in patients on all doses of GC, especially higher doses,” Ms. Costello added.

In regard to using drugs that are less cardiotoxic than GCs, Dr. Bhatt said that there are clinical scenarios in which GC therapy is the best choice, so just switching to nonsteroidal drugs is no panacea. “All RA drugs have adverse side effects, and anyway, the goal of rheumatology treatment is always to get patients off corticosteroids as soon as possible,” he said.

Ms. Costello and colleagues noted that their results are consonant with earlier research, including a single-center, cross-sectional study in which less than 6 months’ use of prednisolone at a median dose of 7.5 mg was associated with hypertension. In a German registry study, among patients who received doses of less than 7.5 mg for less than 6 months, there were higher rates of self-reported elevations in blood pressure.

The findings are at odds, however, with a recent matched-cohort study, which also used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. That study found no association between GC use and hypertension.

GCs have come under increasing scrutiny in regard to several diseases. A study published July 7 found that even short-term courses of a few days’ duration entail risks for serious adverse events.

Ms. Costello’s group says that an estimate of GC-related incident hypertension in RA should allow more informed treatment decisions and that their findings highlight the ongoing need to monitor for and address this risk.

The study was supported by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Coauthor William G. Dixon, PhD, has received consultancy fees from Google and Bayer unrelated to this study. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Costello RE et al. Rheumatology. 2020 June 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa209.

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

Several HIV management efforts in African groups have developed differentiated service delivery models for people living with HIV who also have noncommunicable diseases, offering diagnostic and management strategies that can treat HIV patients holistically and address their range of health issues.

These efforts allow “countries with effective HIV programs to leverage lessons learned and best practices to enhance chronic noncommunicable disease” management, Miriam Rabkin, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. This approach aims to address the “growing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries,” and the recognition that ”people living with HIV have the same or higher prevalence” of chronic noncommunicable diseases as that of others in the region where they live, said Dr. Rabkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York and director for health systems strengthening at ICAP, an international AIDS care program run at Columbia. The differentiated service delivery model derived from the premise that “one size does not fit all,” and that effective interventions must be “tailored” to the social and clinical circumstances of specific regions, she explained.

One program has focused on introducing more contemporary methods for diagnosing leukemias, lymphomas, and melanomas using flow cytometry at the Uganda National Health Laboratory Service in Kampala. This change in testing, which became available to patients starting in February 2019, has allowed diagnostics with fresh specimens that require minimal processing and results returned to referring physicians within 48 hours, a significant upgrade from the 1- to 4-week delay that was typical in the past, said Steven J. Kussick, MD, a hematopathologist and associate medical director of PhenoPath, a commercial pathology laboratory in Seattle.

The idea was to “leverage existing HIV laboratory capabilities to transform cancer diagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said during his talk at the conference. The flow cytometry approach allows an experienced pathologist like Dr. Kussick to diagnose clearcut cases in “5 seconds,” he said. The lab has already run specimens from more than 200 patients, and estimates an ability to handle specimens from about 250 patients per year at a total annual cost of roughly $60,000, an apparently sustainable operating model, said Dr. Kussick, who serves as a full-time consultant to the operation and was also instrumental in the 5-year process that created the diagnostic program. Future improvements planned for this program include bringing on-line a higher complexity diagnostic assay that’s closer to what is currently standard U.S. testing, digital imaging to facilitate consultation with remote experts, adding immunochemistry assays to allow diagnosis of solid tumors, and opening of a second laboratory in Kenya.

Another noncommunicable disease intervention in Africa that’s building on existing infrastructure for dealing with HIV infection is targeting hypertension, the most lethal risk factor globally for preventable deaths, said Jennifer Cohn, MD, senior vice president for cardiovascular health at the New York–based Resolve to Save Lives initiative. “We need to learn from what’s been done for HIV to rapidly incorporate and scale differentiated service models,” she said.

HIV and hypertension, along with diabetes, “are beginning to be recognized as ‘syndemics,’ ”synergistic pandemics, that need a holistic approach. A recent review of the topic reported that in the seven sub-Saharan countries with the highest HIV infection prevalence the percentage of adults with hypertension ranged from 20% to 24% (Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2020 Jul;15[4]:356-60). Projections call for a “dramatic” increase in the prevalence of hypertension in both the general population and among people living with HIV, Dr. Cohn said.

As an example of the potential for combining HIV and antihypertensive care into a one-stop protocol, she cited a model program launched at Makarere University in Kampala, Uganda, that integrates HIV and antihypertensive treatment. Recent data from the program showed that among HIV-infected individuals 24% also had hypertension, and while the program lagged in putting only 28% of these hypertensive patients on a blood pressure-lowering regimen, more than three quarters of these patients on treatment successfully reached their goal blood pressure, proving the feasibility of the combined approach, Dr. Cohn said.

“Starting and scaling with differentiated service delivery models for noncommunicable diseases can help overcome barriers to uptake of care,” concluded Dr. Cohn. “As HIV cohorts age, we have to adapt and ensure we are providing quality, holistic care, including care for high impact noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension.”

Dr. Rabkin and Dr. Cohn had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Several HIV management efforts in African groups have developed differentiated service delivery models for people living with HIV who also have noncommunicable diseases, offering diagnostic and management strategies that can treat HIV patients holistically and address their range of health issues.

These efforts allow “countries with effective HIV programs to leverage lessons learned and best practices to enhance chronic noncommunicable disease” management, Miriam Rabkin, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. This approach aims to address the “growing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries,” and the recognition that ”people living with HIV have the same or higher prevalence” of chronic noncommunicable diseases as that of others in the region where they live, said Dr. Rabkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York and director for health systems strengthening at ICAP, an international AIDS care program run at Columbia. The differentiated service delivery model derived from the premise that “one size does not fit all,” and that effective interventions must be “tailored” to the social and clinical circumstances of specific regions, she explained.

One program has focused on introducing more contemporary methods for diagnosing leukemias, lymphomas, and melanomas using flow cytometry at the Uganda National Health Laboratory Service in Kampala. This change in testing, which became available to patients starting in February 2019, has allowed diagnostics with fresh specimens that require minimal processing and results returned to referring physicians within 48 hours, a significant upgrade from the 1- to 4-week delay that was typical in the past, said Steven J. Kussick, MD, a hematopathologist and associate medical director of PhenoPath, a commercial pathology laboratory in Seattle.

The idea was to “leverage existing HIV laboratory capabilities to transform cancer diagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said during his talk at the conference. The flow cytometry approach allows an experienced pathologist like Dr. Kussick to diagnose clearcut cases in “5 seconds,” he said. The lab has already run specimens from more than 200 patients, and estimates an ability to handle specimens from about 250 patients per year at a total annual cost of roughly $60,000, an apparently sustainable operating model, said Dr. Kussick, who serves as a full-time consultant to the operation and was also instrumental in the 5-year process that created the diagnostic program. Future improvements planned for this program include bringing on-line a higher complexity diagnostic assay that’s closer to what is currently standard U.S. testing, digital imaging to facilitate consultation with remote experts, adding immunochemistry assays to allow diagnosis of solid tumors, and opening of a second laboratory in Kenya.

Another noncommunicable disease intervention in Africa that’s building on existing infrastructure for dealing with HIV infection is targeting hypertension, the most lethal risk factor globally for preventable deaths, said Jennifer Cohn, MD, senior vice president for cardiovascular health at the New York–based Resolve to Save Lives initiative. “We need to learn from what’s been done for HIV to rapidly incorporate and scale differentiated service models,” she said.

HIV and hypertension, along with diabetes, “are beginning to be recognized as ‘syndemics,’ ”synergistic pandemics, that need a holistic approach. A recent review of the topic reported that in the seven sub-Saharan countries with the highest HIV infection prevalence the percentage of adults with hypertension ranged from 20% to 24% (Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2020 Jul;15[4]:356-60). Projections call for a “dramatic” increase in the prevalence of hypertension in both the general population and among people living with HIV, Dr. Cohn said.

As an example of the potential for combining HIV and antihypertensive care into a one-stop protocol, she cited a model program launched at Makarere University in Kampala, Uganda, that integrates HIV and antihypertensive treatment. Recent data from the program showed that among HIV-infected individuals 24% also had hypertension, and while the program lagged in putting only 28% of these hypertensive patients on a blood pressure-lowering regimen, more than three quarters of these patients on treatment successfully reached their goal blood pressure, proving the feasibility of the combined approach, Dr. Cohn said.

“Starting and scaling with differentiated service delivery models for noncommunicable diseases can help overcome barriers to uptake of care,” concluded Dr. Cohn. “As HIV cohorts age, we have to adapt and ensure we are providing quality, holistic care, including care for high impact noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension.”

Dr. Rabkin and Dr. Cohn had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Several HIV management efforts in African groups have developed differentiated service delivery models for people living with HIV who also have noncommunicable diseases, offering diagnostic and management strategies that can treat HIV patients holistically and address their range of health issues.

These efforts allow “countries with effective HIV programs to leverage lessons learned and best practices to enhance chronic noncommunicable disease” management, Miriam Rabkin, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. This approach aims to address the “growing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries,” and the recognition that ”people living with HIV have the same or higher prevalence” of chronic noncommunicable diseases as that of others in the region where they live, said Dr. Rabkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York and director for health systems strengthening at ICAP, an international AIDS care program run at Columbia. The differentiated service delivery model derived from the premise that “one size does not fit all,” and that effective interventions must be “tailored” to the social and clinical circumstances of specific regions, she explained.

One program has focused on introducing more contemporary methods for diagnosing leukemias, lymphomas, and melanomas using flow cytometry at the Uganda National Health Laboratory Service in Kampala. This change in testing, which became available to patients starting in February 2019, has allowed diagnostics with fresh specimens that require minimal processing and results returned to referring physicians within 48 hours, a significant upgrade from the 1- to 4-week delay that was typical in the past, said Steven J. Kussick, MD, a hematopathologist and associate medical director of PhenoPath, a commercial pathology laboratory in Seattle.

The idea was to “leverage existing HIV laboratory capabilities to transform cancer diagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said during his talk at the conference. The flow cytometry approach allows an experienced pathologist like Dr. Kussick to diagnose clearcut cases in “5 seconds,” he said. The lab has already run specimens from more than 200 patients, and estimates an ability to handle specimens from about 250 patients per year at a total annual cost of roughly $60,000, an apparently sustainable operating model, said Dr. Kussick, who serves as a full-time consultant to the operation and was also instrumental in the 5-year process that created the diagnostic program. Future improvements planned for this program include bringing on-line a higher complexity diagnostic assay that’s closer to what is currently standard U.S. testing, digital imaging to facilitate consultation with remote experts, adding immunochemistry assays to allow diagnosis of solid tumors, and opening of a second laboratory in Kenya.

Another noncommunicable disease intervention in Africa that’s building on existing infrastructure for dealing with HIV infection is targeting hypertension, the most lethal risk factor globally for preventable deaths, said Jennifer Cohn, MD, senior vice president for cardiovascular health at the New York–based Resolve to Save Lives initiative. “We need to learn from what’s been done for HIV to rapidly incorporate and scale differentiated service models,” she said.

HIV and hypertension, along with diabetes, “are beginning to be recognized as ‘syndemics,’ ”synergistic pandemics, that need a holistic approach. A recent review of the topic reported that in the seven sub-Saharan countries with the highest HIV infection prevalence the percentage of adults with hypertension ranged from 20% to 24% (Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2020 Jul;15[4]:356-60). Projections call for a “dramatic” increase in the prevalence of hypertension in both the general population and among people living with HIV, Dr. Cohn said.

As an example of the potential for combining HIV and antihypertensive care into a one-stop protocol, she cited a model program launched at Makarere University in Kampala, Uganda, that integrates HIV and antihypertensive treatment. Recent data from the program showed that among HIV-infected individuals 24% also had hypertension, and while the program lagged in putting only 28% of these hypertensive patients on a blood pressure-lowering regimen, more than three quarters of these patients on treatment successfully reached their goal blood pressure, proving the feasibility of the combined approach, Dr. Cohn said.

“Starting and scaling with differentiated service delivery models for noncommunicable diseases can help overcome barriers to uptake of care,” concluded Dr. Cohn. “As HIV cohorts age, we have to adapt and ensure we are providing quality, holistic care, including care for high impact noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension.”

Dr. Rabkin and Dr. Cohn had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Treating hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer, according to findings from a large retrospective study.

However, another study reported just over a year ago suggested that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. An expert approached for comment emphasized that both studies are observational, and, as such, they only show an association, not causation.

In this latest study, published online July 6 in the journal Hypertension, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 22% lower risk for colorectal cancer developing within 3 years after a negative baseline colonoscopy.

This is the largest study to date, with a cohort of more than 185,000 patients, to suggest a significant protective effect for these two common antihypertensive medications, the authors note. The risk of developing colorectal cancer decreased with longer duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB use, with a 5% reduction in adjusted hazard ratio risk for each year of use. However, this effect was limited to patients who had negative colonoscopies within a 3-year period and did not extend beyond that point.

Lead author Wai K. Leung, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Hong Kong, explained that they are not advising patients to take ACE inhibitors simply to prevent cancer. “Unlike aspirin and statins, the potential chemopreventive role of ACE inhibitors on cancer has never been established,” he said in an interview. “The study findings may favor the use of ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension, over many other antihypertensives, in some patients for preventing colorectal cancer.”

Increased or reduced risk?

There has been considerable debate about the potential carcinogenic effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and the relationship with “various solid organ cancer risks have been unsettled,” the authors note. Studies have produced conflicting results – showing no overall cancer risk and a modestly increased overall cancer risk – associated with these agents.

A recent study reported that ACE inhibitors, as compared with ARBs, increased risk for lung cancer by 14%. The risk for lung cancer increased by 22% among those using ACE inhibitors for 5 years, and the risk peaked at 31% for patients who took ACE inhibitors for 10 years or longer.

The lead author of that lung cancer study, Laurent Azoulay, PhD, of McGill University in Montreal, offered some thoughts on the seemingly conflicting data now being reported showing a reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer.

“In a nutshell, this study has important methodologic issues that can explain the observed findings,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Azoulay pointed out that, in the univariate model, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 26% increased risk of colorectal cancer. “It is only after propensity score adjustment that the effect estimate reversed in the protective direction,” he pointed out. “However, the variables included in the propensity score model were measured in the same time window as the exposure, which can lead to an overadjustment bias and generate spurious findings.”

Another issue is that the study period did not begin at the time of the exposure, but rather at a distant point after treatment initiation – in this case, colorectal cancer screening. “As such, the authors excluded patients who were previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer prior to that point, which likely included patients exposed to ACE inhibitors/ARBs,” he said. “This approach can lead to the inclusion of the ‘survivors’ for whom the risk of developing colorectal cancer is lower.

“But certainly,” Dr. Azoulay added, “this possible association should be investigated using methodologically sound approaches.”

Take-home message for physicians

Another expert emphasized the observational nature of both studies. Raymond Townsend, MD, director of the Hypertension Program and a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said: “First and foremost, these are observational studies and cannot make inference about causality; they can only show associations.”

He pointed out that, sometimes, associations are truly present, whereas at other times, there is bias or confounding that cannot be controlled for statistically because it is “unknown.” That said, the size of this latest study is a plus, and there is a reasonable follow-up period.

“The take-home [message] for practitioners is that there may be a benefit in keeping older people on ACE inhibitors on the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer if your last colonoscopy was negative,” Dr. Townsend, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

But there are some questions that remain unanswered regarding characteristics of the cohort, Dr. Townsend noted. “Who were the people having the colonoscopy in the first place? Were they a group at higher risk? Why were some on an ACE inhibitors/ARBs and many others not?” 

There are other conclusions that clinicians can glean from this. “Make a choice of treatment for a patient based on your best estimate of what will lower their blood pressure and prevent hypertension-mediated organ damage,” said Dr. Townsend, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “Keep in mind that patients hear about these studies and read unreviewed blogs on the web and so have questions.”

He emphasized that it always comes back to two things. “One is that every treatment decision is inherently a risk-benefit scenario,” he said. “And second is that most of our patients are adults, and if they choose to not be treated for their hypertension despite our best advice and reasoning with them, relinquish control and let them proceed as they wish, offering to renegotiate in the future when and if they reconsider.”

Study details

In the latest study, Dr. Leung and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study and used data from an electronic health care database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. A total of 187,897 individuals aged 40 years and older had undergone colonoscopy between 2005 and 2013 with a negative result and were included in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was colorectal cancer that was diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after undergoing colonoscopy, and the median age at colonoscopy was 60.6 years. Within this population, 30,856 patients (16.4%) used ACE inhibitors/ARBs.

Between 6 months and 3 years after undergoing colonoscopy, 854 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed, with an incidence rate of 15.2 per 10,000 person-years. The median time between colonoscopy and diagnosis was 1.2 years.

ACE inhibitor/ARB users had a median duration of 3.3 years of use within the 5-year period before their colonoscopy. Within this group, there were 169 (0.55%) cases of colorectal cancer. On univariate analysis, the crude hazard ratio (HR) of colorectal cancer and ACE inhibitor/ARB use was 1.26 (P = .008), but on propensity score regression adjustment, the adjusted HR became 0.78.

The propensity score absolute reduction in risk for users was 3.2 per 10,000 person-years versus nonusers, and stratification by subsite showed an HR of 0.77 for distal cancers and 0.83 for proximal cancers.

In a subgroup analysis, the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs were seen in patients aged 55 years or older (adjusted HR, 0.79) and in those with a history of colonic polyps (adjusted HR, 0.71).

The authors also assessed if there was an association between these medications and other types of cancer. On univariate analysis, usage was associated with an increased risk of lung and prostate cancer but lower risk of breast cancer. But after propensity score regression adjustment, the associations were no longer there.

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Dr. Leung has received honorarium for attending advisory board meetings of AbbVie, Takeda, and Abbott Laboratories; coauthor Esther W. Chan has received funding support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Takeda, Janssen (a division of Johnson & Johnson); Research Grants Council of Hong Kong; Narcotics Division, Security Bureau; and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, all for work unrelated to the current study. None of the other authors have disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Azoulay has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend is employed by Penn Medicine.

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

Treating hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer, according to findings from a large retrospective study.

However, another study reported just over a year ago suggested that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. An expert approached for comment emphasized that both studies are observational, and, as such, they only show an association, not causation.

In this latest study, published online July 6 in the journal Hypertension, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 22% lower risk for colorectal cancer developing within 3 years after a negative baseline colonoscopy.

This is the largest study to date, with a cohort of more than 185,000 patients, to suggest a significant protective effect for these two common antihypertensive medications, the authors note. The risk of developing colorectal cancer decreased with longer duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB use, with a 5% reduction in adjusted hazard ratio risk for each year of use. However, this effect was limited to patients who had negative colonoscopies within a 3-year period and did not extend beyond that point.

Lead author Wai K. Leung, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Hong Kong, explained that they are not advising patients to take ACE inhibitors simply to prevent cancer. “Unlike aspirin and statins, the potential chemopreventive role of ACE inhibitors on cancer has never been established,” he said in an interview. “The study findings may favor the use of ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension, over many other antihypertensives, in some patients for preventing colorectal cancer.”

Increased or reduced risk?

There has been considerable debate about the potential carcinogenic effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and the relationship with “various solid organ cancer risks have been unsettled,” the authors note. Studies have produced conflicting results – showing no overall cancer risk and a modestly increased overall cancer risk – associated with these agents.

A recent study reported that ACE inhibitors, as compared with ARBs, increased risk for lung cancer by 14%. The risk for lung cancer increased by 22% among those using ACE inhibitors for 5 years, and the risk peaked at 31% for patients who took ACE inhibitors for 10 years or longer.

The lead author of that lung cancer study, Laurent Azoulay, PhD, of McGill University in Montreal, offered some thoughts on the seemingly conflicting data now being reported showing a reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer.

“In a nutshell, this study has important methodologic issues that can explain the observed findings,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Azoulay pointed out that, in the univariate model, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 26% increased risk of colorectal cancer. “It is only after propensity score adjustment that the effect estimate reversed in the protective direction,” he pointed out. “However, the variables included in the propensity score model were measured in the same time window as the exposure, which can lead to an overadjustment bias and generate spurious findings.”

Another issue is that the study period did not begin at the time of the exposure, but rather at a distant point after treatment initiation – in this case, colorectal cancer screening. “As such, the authors excluded patients who were previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer prior to that point, which likely included patients exposed to ACE inhibitors/ARBs,” he said. “This approach can lead to the inclusion of the ‘survivors’ for whom the risk of developing colorectal cancer is lower.

“But certainly,” Dr. Azoulay added, “this possible association should be investigated using methodologically sound approaches.”

Take-home message for physicians

Another expert emphasized the observational nature of both studies. Raymond Townsend, MD, director of the Hypertension Program and a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said: “First and foremost, these are observational studies and cannot make inference about causality; they can only show associations.”

He pointed out that, sometimes, associations are truly present, whereas at other times, there is bias or confounding that cannot be controlled for statistically because it is “unknown.” That said, the size of this latest study is a plus, and there is a reasonable follow-up period.

“The take-home [message] for practitioners is that there may be a benefit in keeping older people on ACE inhibitors on the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer if your last colonoscopy was negative,” Dr. Townsend, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

But there are some questions that remain unanswered regarding characteristics of the cohort, Dr. Townsend noted. “Who were the people having the colonoscopy in the first place? Were they a group at higher risk? Why were some on an ACE inhibitors/ARBs and many others not?” 

There are other conclusions that clinicians can glean from this. “Make a choice of treatment for a patient based on your best estimate of what will lower their blood pressure and prevent hypertension-mediated organ damage,” said Dr. Townsend, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “Keep in mind that patients hear about these studies and read unreviewed blogs on the web and so have questions.”

He emphasized that it always comes back to two things. “One is that every treatment decision is inherently a risk-benefit scenario,” he said. “And second is that most of our patients are adults, and if they choose to not be treated for their hypertension despite our best advice and reasoning with them, relinquish control and let them proceed as they wish, offering to renegotiate in the future when and if they reconsider.”

Study details

In the latest study, Dr. Leung and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study and used data from an electronic health care database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. A total of 187,897 individuals aged 40 years and older had undergone colonoscopy between 2005 and 2013 with a negative result and were included in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was colorectal cancer that was diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after undergoing colonoscopy, and the median age at colonoscopy was 60.6 years. Within this population, 30,856 patients (16.4%) used ACE inhibitors/ARBs.

Between 6 months and 3 years after undergoing colonoscopy, 854 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed, with an incidence rate of 15.2 per 10,000 person-years. The median time between colonoscopy and diagnosis was 1.2 years.

ACE inhibitor/ARB users had a median duration of 3.3 years of use within the 5-year period before their colonoscopy. Within this group, there were 169 (0.55%) cases of colorectal cancer. On univariate analysis, the crude hazard ratio (HR) of colorectal cancer and ACE inhibitor/ARB use was 1.26 (P = .008), but on propensity score regression adjustment, the adjusted HR became 0.78.

The propensity score absolute reduction in risk for users was 3.2 per 10,000 person-years versus nonusers, and stratification by subsite showed an HR of 0.77 for distal cancers and 0.83 for proximal cancers.

In a subgroup analysis, the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs were seen in patients aged 55 years or older (adjusted HR, 0.79) and in those with a history of colonic polyps (adjusted HR, 0.71).

The authors also assessed if there was an association between these medications and other types of cancer. On univariate analysis, usage was associated with an increased risk of lung and prostate cancer but lower risk of breast cancer. But after propensity score regression adjustment, the associations were no longer there.

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Dr. Leung has received honorarium for attending advisory board meetings of AbbVie, Takeda, and Abbott Laboratories; coauthor Esther W. Chan has received funding support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Takeda, Janssen (a division of Johnson & Johnson); Research Grants Council of Hong Kong; Narcotics Division, Security Bureau; and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, all for work unrelated to the current study. None of the other authors have disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Azoulay has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend is employed by Penn Medicine.

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

Treating hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer, according to findings from a large retrospective study.

However, another study reported just over a year ago suggested that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. An expert approached for comment emphasized that both studies are observational, and, as such, they only show an association, not causation.

In this latest study, published online July 6 in the journal Hypertension, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 22% lower risk for colorectal cancer developing within 3 years after a negative baseline colonoscopy.

This is the largest study to date, with a cohort of more than 185,000 patients, to suggest a significant protective effect for these two common antihypertensive medications, the authors note. The risk of developing colorectal cancer decreased with longer duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB use, with a 5% reduction in adjusted hazard ratio risk for each year of use. However, this effect was limited to patients who had negative colonoscopies within a 3-year period and did not extend beyond that point.

Lead author Wai K. Leung, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Hong Kong, explained that they are not advising patients to take ACE inhibitors simply to prevent cancer. “Unlike aspirin and statins, the potential chemopreventive role of ACE inhibitors on cancer has never been established,” he said in an interview. “The study findings may favor the use of ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension, over many other antihypertensives, in some patients for preventing colorectal cancer.”

Increased or reduced risk?

There has been considerable debate about the potential carcinogenic effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and the relationship with “various solid organ cancer risks have been unsettled,” the authors note. Studies have produced conflicting results – showing no overall cancer risk and a modestly increased overall cancer risk – associated with these agents.

A recent study reported that ACE inhibitors, as compared with ARBs, increased risk for lung cancer by 14%. The risk for lung cancer increased by 22% among those using ACE inhibitors for 5 years, and the risk peaked at 31% for patients who took ACE inhibitors for 10 years or longer.

The lead author of that lung cancer study, Laurent Azoulay, PhD, of McGill University in Montreal, offered some thoughts on the seemingly conflicting data now being reported showing a reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer.

“In a nutshell, this study has important methodologic issues that can explain the observed findings,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Azoulay pointed out that, in the univariate model, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 26% increased risk of colorectal cancer. “It is only after propensity score adjustment that the effect estimate reversed in the protective direction,” he pointed out. “However, the variables included in the propensity score model were measured in the same time window as the exposure, which can lead to an overadjustment bias and generate spurious findings.”

Another issue is that the study period did not begin at the time of the exposure, but rather at a distant point after treatment initiation – in this case, colorectal cancer screening. “As such, the authors excluded patients who were previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer prior to that point, which likely included patients exposed to ACE inhibitors/ARBs,” he said. “This approach can lead to the inclusion of the ‘survivors’ for whom the risk of developing colorectal cancer is lower.

“But certainly,” Dr. Azoulay added, “this possible association should be investigated using methodologically sound approaches.”

Take-home message for physicians

Another expert emphasized the observational nature of both studies. Raymond Townsend, MD, director of the Hypertension Program and a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said: “First and foremost, these are observational studies and cannot make inference about causality; they can only show associations.”

He pointed out that, sometimes, associations are truly present, whereas at other times, there is bias or confounding that cannot be controlled for statistically because it is “unknown.” That said, the size of this latest study is a plus, and there is a reasonable follow-up period.

“The take-home [message] for practitioners is that there may be a benefit in keeping older people on ACE inhibitors on the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer if your last colonoscopy was negative,” Dr. Townsend, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

But there are some questions that remain unanswered regarding characteristics of the cohort, Dr. Townsend noted. “Who were the people having the colonoscopy in the first place? Were they a group at higher risk? Why were some on an ACE inhibitors/ARBs and many others not?” 

There are other conclusions that clinicians can glean from this. “Make a choice of treatment for a patient based on your best estimate of what will lower their blood pressure and prevent hypertension-mediated organ damage,” said Dr. Townsend, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “Keep in mind that patients hear about these studies and read unreviewed blogs on the web and so have questions.”

He emphasized that it always comes back to two things. “One is that every treatment decision is inherently a risk-benefit scenario,” he said. “And second is that most of our patients are adults, and if they choose to not be treated for their hypertension despite our best advice and reasoning with them, relinquish control and let them proceed as they wish, offering to renegotiate in the future when and if they reconsider.”

Study details

In the latest study, Dr. Leung and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study and used data from an electronic health care database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. A total of 187,897 individuals aged 40 years and older had undergone colonoscopy between 2005 and 2013 with a negative result and were included in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was colorectal cancer that was diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after undergoing colonoscopy, and the median age at colonoscopy was 60.6 years. Within this population, 30,856 patients (16.4%) used ACE inhibitors/ARBs.

Between 6 months and 3 years after undergoing colonoscopy, 854 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed, with an incidence rate of 15.2 per 10,000 person-years. The median time between colonoscopy and diagnosis was 1.2 years.

ACE inhibitor/ARB users had a median duration of 3.3 years of use within the 5-year period before their colonoscopy. Within this group, there were 169 (0.55%) cases of colorectal cancer. On univariate analysis, the crude hazard ratio (HR) of colorectal cancer and ACE inhibitor/ARB use was 1.26 (P = .008), but on propensity score regression adjustment, the adjusted HR became 0.78.

The propensity score absolute reduction in risk for users was 3.2 per 10,000 person-years versus nonusers, and stratification by subsite showed an HR of 0.77 for distal cancers and 0.83 for proximal cancers.

In a subgroup analysis, the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs were seen in patients aged 55 years or older (adjusted HR, 0.79) and in those with a history of colonic polyps (adjusted HR, 0.71).

The authors also assessed if there was an association between these medications and other types of cancer. On univariate analysis, usage was associated with an increased risk of lung and prostate cancer but lower risk of breast cancer. But after propensity score regression adjustment, the associations were no longer there.

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Dr. Leung has received honorarium for attending advisory board meetings of AbbVie, Takeda, and Abbott Laboratories; coauthor Esther W. Chan has received funding support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Takeda, Janssen (a division of Johnson & Johnson); Research Grants Council of Hong Kong; Narcotics Division, Security Bureau; and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, all for work unrelated to the current study. None of the other authors have disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Azoulay has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend is employed by Penn Medicine.

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

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring at home is a validated approach to measure out-of-office BP that has the potential to improve the detection and control of hypertension, according to a joint policy statement from the American Heart Association (AHA) and American Medical Association (AMA).

“With fewer patients visiting medical offices during the COVID-19 pandemic, SMBP monitoring is more important than ever for people at risk for hypertension and uncontrolled BP,” writing group chair Daichi Shimbo, MD, said in a statement.

“There should be investment in creating and supporting the infrastructure for expanding self-measured BP monitoring, as well as increasing coverage for patient- and provider-related costs,” Dr. Shimbo, director, The Columbia Hypertension Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

The statement, Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home, was published June 22 in Circulation.

It provides “contemporary information” on the use, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of SMBP at home for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.

The writing group noted that hypertension is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Several American and international guidelines support the use of SMBP.

“Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension,” the group pointed out.

Use validated devices

Devices that are validated for clinical accuracy should be used for SMBP monitoring, the writing group advised. Validated devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement (with appropriately sized cuffs) and monitoring protocol should be followed.

The group noted that meta-analyses of randomized trials indicate that SMBP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits are greatest when it is used along with other interventions, such as education and counseling, that can be delivered via phone or telehealth visits by nurses and care coordinators.

There are “sufficient data” to indicate that adding SMBP monitoring to office-based monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care in patients with high office BP, the writing group said.

Potential cost savings associated with SMBP monitoring include a reduction in office visit follow-ups as a result of improved BP control, avoidance of possible overtreatment in patients with white-coat hypertension, and improvement in quality of life.

They noted that randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of SMBP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed.

Barriers to widespread use

The use of SMBP monitoring is “essential” for the self-management of hypertension and has “great appeal” for expanding the benefits of cardiovascular prevention, the writing group said. They acknowledged, however, that transitioning from solely office-based BP management to a strategy that includes SMBP monitoring is not without actual and potential barriers.

The group recommends addressing these barriers by:

• Educating patients and providers about the benefits of SMBP monitoring and the optimal approaches for SMBP monitoring.
• Establishing clinical core competency criteria to ensure high-quality SMBP monitoring is supported in clinical practice.
• Incorporating cointerventions that increase the effectiveness of SMBP monitoring, including behavioral change management and counseling, communication of treatment recommendations back to patients, medication management, and prescription and adherence monitoring.
• Creating systems for SMBP readings to be transferred from devices to electronic health records.
• Improving public and private health insurance coverage of validated SMBP monitoring devices prescribed by a health care provider.
• Reimbursing providers for costs associated with training patients, transmitting BP data, interpreting and reporting BP readings, and delivering cointerventions.

Increasing the use of SMBP monitoring is a major focus area of Target: BP – a national initiative of the AHA and AMA launched in response to the high prevalence of uncontrolled BP.

Target: BP helps health care organizations and care teams improve BP control rates through the evidence-based MAP BP Program.

MAP is an acronym that stands for Measure BP accurately every time it’s measured, Act rapidly to manage uncontrolled BP, and Partner with patients to promote BP self-management.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Shimbo has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
 

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

Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring at home is a validated approach to measure out-of-office BP that has the potential to improve the detection and control of hypertension, according to a joint policy statement from the American Heart Association (AHA) and American Medical Association (AMA).

“With fewer patients visiting medical offices during the COVID-19 pandemic, SMBP monitoring is more important than ever for people at risk for hypertension and uncontrolled BP,” writing group chair Daichi Shimbo, MD, said in a statement.

“There should be investment in creating and supporting the infrastructure for expanding self-measured BP monitoring, as well as increasing coverage for patient- and provider-related costs,” Dr. Shimbo, director, The Columbia Hypertension Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

The statement, Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home, was published June 22 in Circulation.

It provides “contemporary information” on the use, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of SMBP at home for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.

The writing group noted that hypertension is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Several American and international guidelines support the use of SMBP.

“Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension,” the group pointed out.

Use validated devices

Devices that are validated for clinical accuracy should be used for SMBP monitoring, the writing group advised. Validated devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement (with appropriately sized cuffs) and monitoring protocol should be followed.

The group noted that meta-analyses of randomized trials indicate that SMBP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits are greatest when it is used along with other interventions, such as education and counseling, that can be delivered via phone or telehealth visits by nurses and care coordinators.

There are “sufficient data” to indicate that adding SMBP monitoring to office-based monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care in patients with high office BP, the writing group said.

Potential cost savings associated with SMBP monitoring include a reduction in office visit follow-ups as a result of improved BP control, avoidance of possible overtreatment in patients with white-coat hypertension, and improvement in quality of life.

They noted that randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of SMBP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed.

Barriers to widespread use

The use of SMBP monitoring is “essential” for the self-management of hypertension and has “great appeal” for expanding the benefits of cardiovascular prevention, the writing group said. They acknowledged, however, that transitioning from solely office-based BP management to a strategy that includes SMBP monitoring is not without actual and potential barriers.

The group recommends addressing these barriers by:

• Educating patients and providers about the benefits of SMBP monitoring and the optimal approaches for SMBP monitoring.
• Establishing clinical core competency criteria to ensure high-quality SMBP monitoring is supported in clinical practice.
• Incorporating cointerventions that increase the effectiveness of SMBP monitoring, including behavioral change management and counseling, communication of treatment recommendations back to patients, medication management, and prescription and adherence monitoring.
• Creating systems for SMBP readings to be transferred from devices to electronic health records.
• Improving public and private health insurance coverage of validated SMBP monitoring devices prescribed by a health care provider.
• Reimbursing providers for costs associated with training patients, transmitting BP data, interpreting and reporting BP readings, and delivering cointerventions.

Increasing the use of SMBP monitoring is a major focus area of Target: BP – a national initiative of the AHA and AMA launched in response to the high prevalence of uncontrolled BP.

Target: BP helps health care organizations and care teams improve BP control rates through the evidence-based MAP BP Program.

MAP is an acronym that stands for Measure BP accurately every time it’s measured, Act rapidly to manage uncontrolled BP, and Partner with patients to promote BP self-management.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Shimbo has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
 

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

Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring at home is a validated approach to measure out-of-office BP that has the potential to improve the detection and control of hypertension, according to a joint policy statement from the American Heart Association (AHA) and American Medical Association (AMA).

“With fewer patients visiting medical offices during the COVID-19 pandemic, SMBP monitoring is more important than ever for people at risk for hypertension and uncontrolled BP,” writing group chair Daichi Shimbo, MD, said in a statement.

“There should be investment in creating and supporting the infrastructure for expanding self-measured BP monitoring, as well as increasing coverage for patient- and provider-related costs,” Dr. Shimbo, director, The Columbia Hypertension Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

The statement, Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home, was published June 22 in Circulation.

It provides “contemporary information” on the use, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of SMBP at home for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.

The writing group noted that hypertension is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Several American and international guidelines support the use of SMBP.

“Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension,” the group pointed out.

Use validated devices

Devices that are validated for clinical accuracy should be used for SMBP monitoring, the writing group advised. Validated devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement (with appropriately sized cuffs) and monitoring protocol should be followed.

The group noted that meta-analyses of randomized trials indicate that SMBP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits are greatest when it is used along with other interventions, such as education and counseling, that can be delivered via phone or telehealth visits by nurses and care coordinators.

There are “sufficient data” to indicate that adding SMBP monitoring to office-based monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care in patients with high office BP, the writing group said.

Potential cost savings associated with SMBP monitoring include a reduction in office visit follow-ups as a result of improved BP control, avoidance of possible overtreatment in patients with white-coat hypertension, and improvement in quality of life.

They noted that randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of SMBP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed.

Barriers to widespread use

The use of SMBP monitoring is “essential” for the self-management of hypertension and has “great appeal” for expanding the benefits of cardiovascular prevention, the writing group said. They acknowledged, however, that transitioning from solely office-based BP management to a strategy that includes SMBP monitoring is not without actual and potential barriers.

The group recommends addressing these barriers by:

• Educating patients and providers about the benefits of SMBP monitoring and the optimal approaches for SMBP monitoring.
• Establishing clinical core competency criteria to ensure high-quality SMBP monitoring is supported in clinical practice.
• Incorporating cointerventions that increase the effectiveness of SMBP monitoring, including behavioral change management and counseling, communication of treatment recommendations back to patients, medication management, and prescription and adherence monitoring.
• Creating systems for SMBP readings to be transferred from devices to electronic health records.
• Improving public and private health insurance coverage of validated SMBP monitoring devices prescribed by a health care provider.
• Reimbursing providers for costs associated with training patients, transmitting BP data, interpreting and reporting BP readings, and delivering cointerventions.

Increasing the use of SMBP monitoring is a major focus area of Target: BP – a national initiative of the AHA and AMA launched in response to the high prevalence of uncontrolled BP.

Target: BP helps health care organizations and care teams improve BP control rates through the evidence-based MAP BP Program.

MAP is an acronym that stands for Measure BP accurately every time it’s measured, Act rapidly to manage uncontrolled BP, and Partner with patients to promote BP self-management.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Shimbo has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
 

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

Cardiovascular risk continues to reduce as systolic blood pressure decreases right down to levels as low as 90 mm Hg, a new study has shown.

The study analyzed data from a cohort of 1,457 participants (mean age, 58 years) who did not have any traditional cardiovascular risk factors and had a systolic blood pressure level between 90 and 129 mm Hg at baseline. Results showed that, during a mean follow-up of 14.5 years, there was an increase in traditional cardiovascular risk factors, coronary artery calcium, and incident cardiovascular events with increasing systolic blood pressure levels.

“We modeled systolic blood pressure on a continuous scale and saw the risk increasing in a linear fashion as blood pressure increased and this occurred right down to 90 mm Hg. We didn’t see any nadir or J-point where there may be an increased risk at lower pressures,” said lead author Seamus Whelton, MD.

Dr. Whelton is assistant professor of medicine at the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He is the son of Paul Whelton, MD, chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guideline writing committee.

“From an individual level we can now say that in healthy individuals, a systolic pressure in the 90s is not too low. It is a positive thing. And it is recommended to try and keep systolic pressure at these levels if possible by maintaining a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Whelton said in an interview. “At a population level this finding could lead to stronger recommendations on interventions to prevent increasing blood pressure such as healthier diets, reducing sodium intake, and increasing exercise. Small changes in blood pressure on a population level will lead to large changes in cardiovascular risk on a population a level.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology on June 10.

The researchers noted that populations in nonindustrialized countries have little to no increase in systolic blood pressure levels with age, while systolic blood pressure levels typically increase with age in countries with industrialized diets and lifestyles. This has important implications, because atherosclerosis is a slowly progressive disease and the lower an individual’s lifetime exposure to cardiovascular risk factors, such as increased systolic blood pressure, the lower their probable risk for a future cardiovascular event, they wrote.

While the association between systolic blood pressure level, coronary artery calcium, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is well established at higher blood pressure levels, optimal systolic pressure levels for a healthy adult and whether there is a J-shaped relationship or lower limit of systolic pressure necessary to maintain adequate organ perfusion has been uncertain, they explained.

In addition, prior studies have typically used a reference systolic pressure of less than 115-120 mm Hg to define a normal level, and it is uncertain whether there is a lower level at which the risk for incident cardiovascular disease plateaus or increases.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a community-based, multiethnic cohort free from known cardiovascular disease at enrollment. The current analysis included individuals with a systolic blood pressure between 90 and 129 mm Hg without other traditional cardiovascular risk factors including dyslipidemia (LDL cholesterol >160 mg/dL or HDL cholesterol <40 mg/dL), diabetes, or current tobacco use.

Results showed an adjusted hazard ratio for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was 1.53 for every 10 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure levels.

Compared with people with systolic pressures of 90-99 mm Hg, the adjusted hazard ratio for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was 3.00 for those with 100-109 mm Hg, 3.10 for those with 110-119 mm Hg, and 4.58 for those with 120-129 mm Hg.

There was also a graded increase in the prevalence of coronary artery calcium starting from systolic blood pressure levels as low as 90 mm Hg.

“Previous research on the J-shaped curve for blood pressure has primarily focused on diastolic pressure. We did control for diastolic pressure in this analysis but that was not the focus,” Dr. Whelton said. “Obviously, there will be a minimum optimum value for both diastolic and systolic pressure. But from this study we can say that for systolic pressure, that minimum recommended value is below 90 mm Hg.”

In terms of implications, the researchers wrote: “Among individuals at low or intermediate atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, it may be more efficacious to focus on a life-course approach for preventing an increase in systolic blood pressure levels rather than treatment of established hypertension to lower systolic blood pressure levels.”

What is a normal blood pressure?

In an accompanying commentary, Daniel Jones, MD, of the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said these new findings support the position that risk imposed by blood pressure level begins well below the current 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension and guideline-recommended goal.

The study is “a reminder that even a good execution of treatment of hypertension is far from an ideal way to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“A systolic of 130 is not the number we should focus on for patients who are not yet hypertensive, as 130 is not a normal blood pressure,” Dr. Jones added in an audio interview on the JAMA website.

“The findings also suggest that the disease process for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease begins early in life and support the importance of primordial prevention through a healthy lifestyle, including a healthy diet and levels of physical activity. In addition, the findings highlight the need for a population-based strategy focusing on primordial prevention to reduce the age-related increase in BP reported in all industrialized societies,” Dr. Jones wrote.

He recommended that clinicians encourage a healthy lifestyle in patients and families of patients with cardiovascular disease. “This intervention requires no sophisticated genetic testing or clinical trials to credibly inform a family that the children and grandchildren of a patient with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or risk factors will benefit from a healthy lifestyle beginning at the earliest age.

“Clinicians often lose sight of the big picture with regard to blood pressure because they have the patient in front of them. But that patient has children and grandchildren who may share the risk and may be in a better position with regard to prevention of future [coronary artery disease], stroke, and kidney disease,” he said.

Conducting the JAMA audio interview, Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that “this is very stimulating research. It is not asking the question of what is the target blood pressure for patients with hypertension, but rather: What is the goal blood pressure if you actually want to avoid atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk altogether?

“These data have made us understand that there is a difference between the goal blood pressure reduction and treatment thresholds that we respect, the normative blood pressure values we see in a clinical setting, and what is truly normal blood pressure,” Dr. Yancy concluded. “That is a very important nuance, especially when we’re talking about population health. Families and communities need to understand what the true normal is.”

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

Cardiovascular risk continues to reduce as systolic blood pressure decreases right down to levels as low as 90 mm Hg, a new study has shown.

The study analyzed data from a cohort of 1,457 participants (mean age, 58 years) who did not have any traditional cardiovascular risk factors and had a systolic blood pressure level between 90 and 129 mm Hg at baseline. Results showed that, during a mean follow-up of 14.5 years, there was an increase in traditional cardiovascular risk factors, coronary artery calcium, and incident cardiovascular events with increasing systolic blood pressure levels.

“We modeled systolic blood pressure on a continuous scale and saw the risk increasing in a linear fashion as blood pressure increased and this occurred right down to 90 mm Hg. We didn’t see any nadir or J-point where there may be an increased risk at lower pressures,” said lead author Seamus Whelton, MD.

Dr. Whelton is assistant professor of medicine at the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He is the son of Paul Whelton, MD, chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guideline writing committee.

“From an individual level we can now say that in healthy individuals, a systolic pressure in the 90s is not too low. It is a positive thing. And it is recommended to try and keep systolic pressure at these levels if possible by maintaining a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Whelton said in an interview. “At a population level this finding could lead to stronger recommendations on interventions to prevent increasing blood pressure such as healthier diets, reducing sodium intake, and increasing exercise. Small changes in blood pressure on a population level will lead to large changes in cardiovascular risk on a population a level.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology on June 10.

The researchers noted that populations in nonindustrialized countries have little to no increase in systolic blood pressure levels with age, while systolic blood pressure levels typically increase with age in countries with industrialized diets and lifestyles. This has important implications, because atherosclerosis is a slowly progressive disease and the lower an individual’s lifetime exposure to cardiovascular risk factors, such as increased systolic blood pressure, the lower their probable risk for a future cardiovascular event, they wrote.

While the association between systolic blood pressure level, coronary artery calcium, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is well established at higher blood pressure levels, optimal systolic pressure levels for a healthy adult and whether there is a J-shaped relationship or lower limit of systolic pressure necessary to maintain adequate organ perfusion has been uncertain, they explained.

In addition, prior studies have typically used a reference systolic pressure of less than 115-120 mm Hg to define a normal level, and it is uncertain whether there is a lower level at which the risk for incident cardiovascular disease plateaus or increases.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a community-based, multiethnic cohort free from known cardiovascular disease at enrollment. The current analysis included individuals with a systolic blood pressure between 90 and 129 mm Hg without other traditional cardiovascular risk factors including dyslipidemia (LDL cholesterol >160 mg/dL or HDL cholesterol <40 mg/dL), diabetes, or current tobacco use.

Results showed an adjusted hazard ratio for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was 1.53 for every 10 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure levels.

Compared with people with systolic pressures of 90-99 mm Hg, the adjusted hazard ratio for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was 3.00 for those with 100-109 mm Hg, 3.10 for those with 110-119 mm Hg, and 4.58 for those with 120-129 mm Hg.

There was also a graded increase in the prevalence of coronary artery calcium starting from systolic blood pressure levels as low as 90 mm Hg.

“Previous research on the J-shaped curve for blood pressure has primarily focused on diastolic pressure. We did control for diastolic pressure in this analysis but that was not the focus,” Dr. Whelton said. “Obviously, there will be a minimum optimum value for both diastolic and systolic pressure. But from this study we can say that for systolic pressure, that minimum recommended value is below 90 mm Hg.”

In terms of implications, the researchers wrote: “Among individuals at low or intermediate atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, it may be more efficacious to focus on a life-course approach for preventing an increase in systolic blood pressure levels rather than treatment of established hypertension to lower systolic blood pressure levels.”

What is a normal blood pressure?

In an accompanying commentary, Daniel Jones, MD, of the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said these new findings support the position that risk imposed by blood pressure level begins well below the current 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension and guideline-recommended goal.

The study is “a reminder that even a good execution of treatment of hypertension is far from an ideal way to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“A systolic of 130 is not the number we should focus on for patients who are not yet hypertensive, as 130 is not a normal blood pressure,” Dr. Jones added in an audio interview on the JAMA website.

“The findings also suggest that the disease process for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease begins early in life and support the importance of primordial prevention through a healthy lifestyle, including a healthy diet and levels of physical activity. In addition, the findings highlight the need for a population-based strategy focusing on primordial prevention to reduce the age-related increase in BP reported in all industrialized societies,” Dr. Jones wrote.

He recommended that clinicians encourage a healthy lifestyle in patients and families of patients with cardiovascular disease. “This intervention requires no sophisticated genetic testing or clinical trials to credibly inform a family that the children and grandchildren of a patient with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or risk factors will benefit from a healthy lifestyle beginning at the earliest age.

“Clinicians often lose sight of the big picture with regard to blood pressure because they have the patient in front of them. But that patient has children and grandchildren who may share the risk and may be in a better position with regard to prevention of future [coronary artery disease], stroke, and kidney disease,” he said.

Conducting the JAMA audio interview, Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that “this is very stimulating research. It is not asking the question of what is the target blood pressure for patients with hypertension, but rather: What is the goal blood pressure if you actually want to avoid atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk altogether?

“These data have made us understand that there is a difference between the goal blood pressure reduction and treatment thresholds that we respect, the normative blood pressure values we see in a clinical setting, and what is truly normal blood pressure,” Dr. Yancy concluded. “That is a very important nuance, especially when we’re talking about population health. Families and communities need to understand what the true normal is.”

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

Cardiovascular risk continues to reduce as systolic blood pressure decreases right down to levels as low as 90 mm Hg, a new study has shown.

The study analyzed data from a cohort of 1,457 participants (mean age, 58 years) who did not have any traditional cardiovascular risk factors and had a systolic blood pressure level between 90 and 129 mm Hg at baseline. Results showed that, during a mean follow-up of 14.5 years, there was an increase in traditional cardiovascular risk factors, coronary artery calcium, and incident cardiovascular events with increasing systolic blood pressure levels.

“We modeled systolic blood pressure on a continuous scale and saw the risk increasing in a linear fashion as blood pressure increased and this occurred right down to 90 mm Hg. We didn’t see any nadir or J-point where there may be an increased risk at lower pressures,” said lead author Seamus Whelton, MD.

Dr. Whelton is assistant professor of medicine at the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He is the son of Paul Whelton, MD, chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guideline writing committee.

“From an individual level we can now say that in healthy individuals, a systolic pressure in the 90s is not too low. It is a positive thing. And it is recommended to try and keep systolic pressure at these levels if possible by maintaining a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Whelton said in an interview. “At a population level this finding could lead to stronger recommendations on interventions to prevent increasing blood pressure such as healthier diets, reducing sodium intake, and increasing exercise. Small changes in blood pressure on a population level will lead to large changes in cardiovascular risk on a population a level.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology on June 10.

The researchers noted that populations in nonindustrialized countries have little to no increase in systolic blood pressure levels with age, while systolic blood pressure levels typically increase with age in countries with industrialized diets and lifestyles. This has important implications, because atherosclerosis is a slowly progressive disease and the lower an individual’s lifetime exposure to cardiovascular risk factors, such as increased systolic blood pressure, the lower their probable risk for a future cardiovascular event, they wrote.

While the association between systolic blood pressure level, coronary artery calcium, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is well established at higher blood pressure levels, optimal systolic pressure levels for a healthy adult and whether there is a J-shaped relationship or lower limit of systolic pressure necessary to maintain adequate organ perfusion has been uncertain, they explained.

In addition, prior studies have typically used a reference systolic pressure of less than 115-120 mm Hg to define a normal level, and it is uncertain whether there is a lower level at which the risk for incident cardiovascular disease plateaus or increases.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a community-based, multiethnic cohort free from known cardiovascular disease at enrollment. The current analysis included individuals with a systolic blood pressure between 90 and 129 mm Hg without other traditional cardiovascular risk factors including dyslipidemia (LDL cholesterol >160 mg/dL or HDL cholesterol <40 mg/dL), diabetes, or current tobacco use.

Results showed an adjusted hazard ratio for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was 1.53 for every 10 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure levels.

Compared with people with systolic pressures of 90-99 mm Hg, the adjusted hazard ratio for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was 3.00 for those with 100-109 mm Hg, 3.10 for those with 110-119 mm Hg, and 4.58 for those with 120-129 mm Hg.

There was also a graded increase in the prevalence of coronary artery calcium starting from systolic blood pressure levels as low as 90 mm Hg.

“Previous research on the J-shaped curve for blood pressure has primarily focused on diastolic pressure. We did control for diastolic pressure in this analysis but that was not the focus,” Dr. Whelton said. “Obviously, there will be a minimum optimum value for both diastolic and systolic pressure. But from this study we can say that for systolic pressure, that minimum recommended value is below 90 mm Hg.”

In terms of implications, the researchers wrote: “Among individuals at low or intermediate atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, it may be more efficacious to focus on a life-course approach for preventing an increase in systolic blood pressure levels rather than treatment of established hypertension to lower systolic blood pressure levels.”

What is a normal blood pressure?

In an accompanying commentary, Daniel Jones, MD, of the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said these new findings support the position that risk imposed by blood pressure level begins well below the current 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension and guideline-recommended goal.

The study is “a reminder that even a good execution of treatment of hypertension is far from an ideal way to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“A systolic of 130 is not the number we should focus on for patients who are not yet hypertensive, as 130 is not a normal blood pressure,” Dr. Jones added in an audio interview on the JAMA website.

“The findings also suggest that the disease process for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease begins early in life and support the importance of primordial prevention through a healthy lifestyle, including a healthy diet and levels of physical activity. In addition, the findings highlight the need for a population-based strategy focusing on primordial prevention to reduce the age-related increase in BP reported in all industrialized societies,” Dr. Jones wrote.

He recommended that clinicians encourage a healthy lifestyle in patients and families of patients with cardiovascular disease. “This intervention requires no sophisticated genetic testing or clinical trials to credibly inform a family that the children and grandchildren of a patient with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or risk factors will benefit from a healthy lifestyle beginning at the earliest age.

“Clinicians often lose sight of the big picture with regard to blood pressure because they have the patient in front of them. But that patient has children and grandchildren who may share the risk and may be in a better position with regard to prevention of future [coronary artery disease], stroke, and kidney disease,” he said.

Conducting the JAMA audio interview, Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that “this is very stimulating research. It is not asking the question of what is the target blood pressure for patients with hypertension, but rather: What is the goal blood pressure if you actually want to avoid atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk altogether?

“These data have made us understand that there is a difference between the goal blood pressure reduction and treatment thresholds that we respect, the normative blood pressure values we see in a clinical setting, and what is truly normal blood pressure,” Dr. Yancy concluded. “That is a very important nuance, especially when we’re talking about population health. Families and communities need to understand what the true normal is.”

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

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lung ultrasound works well in children with COVID-19

Lung ultrasound has “high concordance” with radiologic findings in children with COVID-19 and offers benefits over other imaging techniques, such as CT. “First, it may reduce the number of radiologic examinations, lowering the radiation exposure of the patients,” wrote Marco Denina, MD, and colleagues from the pediatric infectious diseases unit at Regina Margherita Children’s Hospital in Turin, Italy. “Secondly, when performed at the bedside, [lung ultrasound] allows for the reduction of the patient’s movement within the hospital; thus, it lowers the number of health care workers and medical devices exposed to [SARS-CoV-2].” The findings of the small, observational study were published in Pediatrics. Read more.

New hypertension definitions reveal preclampsia risk

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study. Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby. The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy, which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states. Read more.

Face mask type matters when sterilizing

When sterilizing face masks, the type of mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks. With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO2) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%. Read more.

FDA approves first treatment for adult-onset Still’s disease

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). That makes Ilaris the first approved treatment for AOSD. The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab. Read more.

Intranasal DHE shows promise in migraine

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. The new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE. The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lung ultrasound works well in children with COVID-19

Lung ultrasound has “high concordance” with radiologic findings in children with COVID-19 and offers benefits over other imaging techniques, such as CT. “First, it may reduce the number of radiologic examinations, lowering the radiation exposure of the patients,” wrote Marco Denina, MD, and colleagues from the pediatric infectious diseases unit at Regina Margherita Children’s Hospital in Turin, Italy. “Secondly, when performed at the bedside, [lung ultrasound] allows for the reduction of the patient’s movement within the hospital; thus, it lowers the number of health care workers and medical devices exposed to [SARS-CoV-2].” The findings of the small, observational study were published in Pediatrics. Read more.

New hypertension definitions reveal preclampsia risk

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study. Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby. The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy, which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states. Read more.

Face mask type matters when sterilizing

When sterilizing face masks, the type of mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks. With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO2) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%. Read more.

FDA approves first treatment for adult-onset Still’s disease

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). That makes Ilaris the first approved treatment for AOSD. The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab. Read more.

Intranasal DHE shows promise in migraine

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. The new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE. The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lung ultrasound works well in children with COVID-19

Lung ultrasound has “high concordance” with radiologic findings in children with COVID-19 and offers benefits over other imaging techniques, such as CT. “First, it may reduce the number of radiologic examinations, lowering the radiation exposure of the patients,” wrote Marco Denina, MD, and colleagues from the pediatric infectious diseases unit at Regina Margherita Children’s Hospital in Turin, Italy. “Secondly, when performed at the bedside, [lung ultrasound] allows for the reduction of the patient’s movement within the hospital; thus, it lowers the number of health care workers and medical devices exposed to [SARS-CoV-2].” The findings of the small, observational study were published in Pediatrics. Read more.

New hypertension definitions reveal preclampsia risk

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study. Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby. The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy, which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states. Read more.

Face mask type matters when sterilizing

When sterilizing face masks, the type of mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks. With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO2) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%. Read more.

FDA approves first treatment for adult-onset Still’s disease

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). That makes Ilaris the first approved treatment for AOSD. The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab. Read more.

Intranasal DHE shows promise in migraine

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. The new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE. The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).

“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.

“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.

As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.

Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
 

Analyses limited by incomplete data

Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.

“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”

Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).

Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.

“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.

“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.

On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.

“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.

Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.

No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.

In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.

SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.

Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.

SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.

This article was updated 6/16/20.

In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).

“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.

“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.

As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.

Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
 

Analyses limited by incomplete data

Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.

“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”

Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).

Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.

“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.

“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.

On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.

“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.

Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.

No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.

In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.

SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.

Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.

SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.

This article was updated 6/16/20.

In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).

“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.

“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.

As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.

Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
 

Analyses limited by incomplete data

Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.

“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”

Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).

Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.

“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.

“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.

On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.

“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.

Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.

No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.

In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.

SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.

Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.

SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.

This article was updated 6/16/20.