Hypertension

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

Addressing racism in the maternal mortality crisis

The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality. “The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative, a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health. This article is part of an ongoing feature series on the crisis in maternal mortality in the United States. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders. Read more.

A ‘Beacon’ for physicians, nurses facing retaliation

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality. The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus. “There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.” Read more.

COVID-19 ravages the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation has the most cases of the COVID-19 virus of any tribe in the United States, and numbers as of May 31, 2020, are 5,348, with 246 confirmed deaths. These devastating numbers, which might be leveling off, are associated with Navajo people having higher-than-average rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. This is compounded with 30%-40% of homes having no electricity or running water, and a poverty rate of about 38%. “We endured and learned from each Naayee, hunger, and death to name a few adversities. The COVID-19 pandemic, or “Big Cough” (Dikos Nitsaa’igii -19 in Navajo language), is a monster confronting the Navajo today. It has had significant impact on our nation and people,” Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., wrote in a commentary on MDedge. Read more.

Heart pump system authorized for COVID-19 patients

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation. The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including pulmonary embolism. Read more.

Deprescribing hypertension meds looks safe for older adults

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure control, researchers concluded based on findings from a randomized multicenter trial. The study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” said James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England). The report was published in JAMA. 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:

Addressing racism in the maternal mortality crisis

The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality. “The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative, a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health. This article is part of an ongoing feature series on the crisis in maternal mortality in the United States. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders. Read more.

A ‘Beacon’ for physicians, nurses facing retaliation

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality. The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus. “There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.” Read more.

COVID-19 ravages the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation has the most cases of the COVID-19 virus of any tribe in the United States, and numbers as of May 31, 2020, are 5,348, with 246 confirmed deaths. These devastating numbers, which might be leveling off, are associated with Navajo people having higher-than-average rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. This is compounded with 30%-40% of homes having no electricity or running water, and a poverty rate of about 38%. “We endured and learned from each Naayee, hunger, and death to name a few adversities. The COVID-19 pandemic, or “Big Cough” (Dikos Nitsaa’igii -19 in Navajo language), is a monster confronting the Navajo today. It has had significant impact on our nation and people,” Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., wrote in a commentary on MDedge. Read more.

Heart pump system authorized for COVID-19 patients

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation. The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including pulmonary embolism. Read more.

Deprescribing hypertension meds looks safe for older adults

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure control, researchers concluded based on findings from a randomized multicenter trial. The study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” said James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England). The report was published in JAMA. 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:

Addressing racism in the maternal mortality crisis

The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality. “The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative, a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health. This article is part of an ongoing feature series on the crisis in maternal mortality in the United States. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders. Read more.

A ‘Beacon’ for physicians, nurses facing retaliation

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality. The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus. “There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.” Read more.

COVID-19 ravages the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation has the most cases of the COVID-19 virus of any tribe in the United States, and numbers as of May 31, 2020, are 5,348, with 246 confirmed deaths. These devastating numbers, which might be leveling off, are associated with Navajo people having higher-than-average rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. This is compounded with 30%-40% of homes having no electricity or running water, and a poverty rate of about 38%. “We endured and learned from each Naayee, hunger, and death to name a few adversities. The COVID-19 pandemic, or “Big Cough” (Dikos Nitsaa’igii -19 in Navajo language), is a monster confronting the Navajo today. It has had significant impact on our nation and people,” Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., wrote in a commentary on MDedge. Read more.

Heart pump system authorized for COVID-19 patients

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation. The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including pulmonary embolism. Read more.

Deprescribing hypertension meds looks safe for older adults

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure control, researchers concluded based on findings from a randomized multicenter trial. The study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” said James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England). The report was published in JAMA. Read more.

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

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure (BP) control, researchers concluded based on their randomized multicenter trial.

Deprescription of one of at least two antihypertensive meds in such patients was found noninferior to usual care in keeping systolic BP below 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks, in the study that randomly assigned only patients who were considered appropriate for BP-med reduction by their primary care physicians.

Major trials that have shaped some contemporary hypertension guidelines, notably SPRINT, in general have not included such older patients with hypertension along with other chronic conditions, such as diabetes or a history of stroke. So “it’s difficult to know whether their data are relevant for frail, multimorbid patients. In fact, the guidelines say you should use some clinical judgment when applying the results of SPRINT to the kind of patients seen in clinical practice,” James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England) said in an interview.

The current study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” Dr. Sheppard said.

The trial is meant to provide something of an otherwise-scant evidence base for how to deprescribe antihypertensive medications, said Dr. Sheppard, who is lead author on the report published May 25 in JAMA.

Of the trial’s 282 patients randomly assigned to the drug-reduction group, 86.4% reached the primary endpoint goal of systolic BP less than 150 mm Hg, compared with 87.7% of the 287 patients on usual care, a difference which in adjusted analysis met the predetermined standard for noninferiority.

The intervention group reduced its number of antihypertensive agents by a mean of 0.6 per patient, which the authors described as “a modest reduction.” However, they noted, drugs that were taken away could be reintroduced as judged necessary by the physicians, yet most of the group sustained their reductions until the end of the 12 weeks.

Had the primary endpoint instead specified a threshold of 130 mm Hg for BP control, which is more consistent with SPRINT and some guidelines in the United States, “the deprescribing strategy would have failed to be considered noninferior to usual care” as calculated by the OPTIMISE authors themselves, observed an accompanying editorial.

The 150 mm Hg threshold chosen by the trialists for the primary endpoint, therefore, “was somewhat of a low bar,” wrote Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Michael W. Rich, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo.

“Here in the UK it wouldn’t be considered a low bar,” Dr. Sheppard said in an interview. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in Britain “recommends that you treat people over the age of 18 regardless of whether they have any other conditions and to 150 mm Hg systolic.”

The study’s general practitioners, he said, “did what we told them to do, and as a result, two-thirds of the patients were able to reduce their medications. If we had a lower threshold for treatment, it’s possible that more patients might have had medications reintroduced. I think you still could have potentially ended up with a noninferior result.”

Participating physicians were instructed to enroll only “patients who, in their opinion, might potentially benefit from medication reduction due to one or more of the following existing characteristics: polypharmacy, comorbidity, nonadherence or dislike of medicines, or frailty,” the report notes.

They chose which antihypertensives would be dropped for each patient and “were given a medication reduction algorithm to assist with this decision.” Physicians also followed a guide for monitoring for safety issues and were told to reintroduce medications if systolic BP exceeded 150 mm Hg or diastolic BP rose above 90 mm Hg for more than 1 week or in the event of adverse events or signs of accelerated hypertension, the group wrote.

In the deprescription group, the mean systolic BP rose 4.3 points from baseline to 12 weeks, from 129.4 to 133.7 mm Hg. For those given usual care, mean systolic BP went from 130.5 to 130.8 mm Hg. Adjusted, the mean change in systolic BP was 3.4 mm Hg greater (P = .005) in the intervention group. The corresponding adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was a 2.2 mm Hg increase in the intervention group (P = .001).

Although the difference seems minimal, wrote Dr. Peterson and Dr. Rich, “such differences in BP can potentially lead to long-term differences in outcomes at the population level.”

Also, they pointed out, only about 10% of patients screened for enrollment actually entered the study, which brings into question the study’s generalizability, and “patients in the trial had relatively well-controlled BP at baseline.”

Dr. Sheppard said patients in the original screened population, taken from a national database, were directly invited to participate en masse by conventional mail, based on broad inclusion criteria. Far more than the number needed were invited, and nearly all of those excluded from the study had simply not responded to the invitation.

As for greater increases in systolic and diastolic pressures in the deprescribing group, the OPTIMISE authors acknowledged that “caution should be exercised when adopting this approach in routine clinical practice.”

His own view, Dr. Sheppard said, “is that there are some patients who will definitely benefit from intensive blood pressure lowering like you saw in the SPRINT trial. And there’s other patients who will benefit from deprescribing and having a slightly higher target. Those sorts of things very much need to be individualized at the patient level.”

And ideally, he added, clinicians in practice should probably be even more selective in choosing patients for a deprescribing strategy, “and focus on people who are at the highest risk of adverse events.”

Dr. Sheppard has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Peterson disclosed receiving personal fees from Cerner and Livongo and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen; Dr. Rick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure (BP) control, researchers concluded based on their randomized multicenter trial.

Deprescription of one of at least two antihypertensive meds in such patients was found noninferior to usual care in keeping systolic BP below 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks, in the study that randomly assigned only patients who were considered appropriate for BP-med reduction by their primary care physicians.

Major trials that have shaped some contemporary hypertension guidelines, notably SPRINT, in general have not included such older patients with hypertension along with other chronic conditions, such as diabetes or a history of stroke. So “it’s difficult to know whether their data are relevant for frail, multimorbid patients. In fact, the guidelines say you should use some clinical judgment when applying the results of SPRINT to the kind of patients seen in clinical practice,” James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England) said in an interview.

The current study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” Dr. Sheppard said.

The trial is meant to provide something of an otherwise-scant evidence base for how to deprescribe antihypertensive medications, said Dr. Sheppard, who is lead author on the report published May 25 in JAMA.

Of the trial’s 282 patients randomly assigned to the drug-reduction group, 86.4% reached the primary endpoint goal of systolic BP less than 150 mm Hg, compared with 87.7% of the 287 patients on usual care, a difference which in adjusted analysis met the predetermined standard for noninferiority.

The intervention group reduced its number of antihypertensive agents by a mean of 0.6 per patient, which the authors described as “a modest reduction.” However, they noted, drugs that were taken away could be reintroduced as judged necessary by the physicians, yet most of the group sustained their reductions until the end of the 12 weeks.

Had the primary endpoint instead specified a threshold of 130 mm Hg for BP control, which is more consistent with SPRINT and some guidelines in the United States, “the deprescribing strategy would have failed to be considered noninferior to usual care” as calculated by the OPTIMISE authors themselves, observed an accompanying editorial.

The 150 mm Hg threshold chosen by the trialists for the primary endpoint, therefore, “was somewhat of a low bar,” wrote Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Michael W. Rich, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo.

“Here in the UK it wouldn’t be considered a low bar,” Dr. Sheppard said in an interview. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in Britain “recommends that you treat people over the age of 18 regardless of whether they have any other conditions and to 150 mm Hg systolic.”

The study’s general practitioners, he said, “did what we told them to do, and as a result, two-thirds of the patients were able to reduce their medications. If we had a lower threshold for treatment, it’s possible that more patients might have had medications reintroduced. I think you still could have potentially ended up with a noninferior result.”

Participating physicians were instructed to enroll only “patients who, in their opinion, might potentially benefit from medication reduction due to one or more of the following existing characteristics: polypharmacy, comorbidity, nonadherence or dislike of medicines, or frailty,” the report notes.

They chose which antihypertensives would be dropped for each patient and “were given a medication reduction algorithm to assist with this decision.” Physicians also followed a guide for monitoring for safety issues and were told to reintroduce medications if systolic BP exceeded 150 mm Hg or diastolic BP rose above 90 mm Hg for more than 1 week or in the event of adverse events or signs of accelerated hypertension, the group wrote.

In the deprescription group, the mean systolic BP rose 4.3 points from baseline to 12 weeks, from 129.4 to 133.7 mm Hg. For those given usual care, mean systolic BP went from 130.5 to 130.8 mm Hg. Adjusted, the mean change in systolic BP was 3.4 mm Hg greater (P = .005) in the intervention group. The corresponding adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was a 2.2 mm Hg increase in the intervention group (P = .001).

Although the difference seems minimal, wrote Dr. Peterson and Dr. Rich, “such differences in BP can potentially lead to long-term differences in outcomes at the population level.”

Also, they pointed out, only about 10% of patients screened for enrollment actually entered the study, which brings into question the study’s generalizability, and “patients in the trial had relatively well-controlled BP at baseline.”

Dr. Sheppard said patients in the original screened population, taken from a national database, were directly invited to participate en masse by conventional mail, based on broad inclusion criteria. Far more than the number needed were invited, and nearly all of those excluded from the study had simply not responded to the invitation.

As for greater increases in systolic and diastolic pressures in the deprescribing group, the OPTIMISE authors acknowledged that “caution should be exercised when adopting this approach in routine clinical practice.”

His own view, Dr. Sheppard said, “is that there are some patients who will definitely benefit from intensive blood pressure lowering like you saw in the SPRINT trial. And there’s other patients who will benefit from deprescribing and having a slightly higher target. Those sorts of things very much need to be individualized at the patient level.”

And ideally, he added, clinicians in practice should probably be even more selective in choosing patients for a deprescribing strategy, “and focus on people who are at the highest risk of adverse events.”

Dr. Sheppard has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Peterson disclosed receiving personal fees from Cerner and Livongo and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen; Dr. Rick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure (BP) control, researchers concluded based on their randomized multicenter trial.

Deprescription of one of at least two antihypertensive meds in such patients was found noninferior to usual care in keeping systolic BP below 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks, in the study that randomly assigned only patients who were considered appropriate for BP-med reduction by their primary care physicians.

Major trials that have shaped some contemporary hypertension guidelines, notably SPRINT, in general have not included such older patients with hypertension along with other chronic conditions, such as diabetes or a history of stroke. So “it’s difficult to know whether their data are relevant for frail, multimorbid patients. In fact, the guidelines say you should use some clinical judgment when applying the results of SPRINT to the kind of patients seen in clinical practice,” James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England) said in an interview.

The current study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” Dr. Sheppard said.

The trial is meant to provide something of an otherwise-scant evidence base for how to deprescribe antihypertensive medications, said Dr. Sheppard, who is lead author on the report published May 25 in JAMA.

Of the trial’s 282 patients randomly assigned to the drug-reduction group, 86.4% reached the primary endpoint goal of systolic BP less than 150 mm Hg, compared with 87.7% of the 287 patients on usual care, a difference which in adjusted analysis met the predetermined standard for noninferiority.

The intervention group reduced its number of antihypertensive agents by a mean of 0.6 per patient, which the authors described as “a modest reduction.” However, they noted, drugs that were taken away could be reintroduced as judged necessary by the physicians, yet most of the group sustained their reductions until the end of the 12 weeks.

Had the primary endpoint instead specified a threshold of 130 mm Hg for BP control, which is more consistent with SPRINT and some guidelines in the United States, “the deprescribing strategy would have failed to be considered noninferior to usual care” as calculated by the OPTIMISE authors themselves, observed an accompanying editorial.

The 150 mm Hg threshold chosen by the trialists for the primary endpoint, therefore, “was somewhat of a low bar,” wrote Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Michael W. Rich, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo.

“Here in the UK it wouldn’t be considered a low bar,” Dr. Sheppard said in an interview. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in Britain “recommends that you treat people over the age of 18 regardless of whether they have any other conditions and to 150 mm Hg systolic.”

The study’s general practitioners, he said, “did what we told them to do, and as a result, two-thirds of the patients were able to reduce their medications. If we had a lower threshold for treatment, it’s possible that more patients might have had medications reintroduced. I think you still could have potentially ended up with a noninferior result.”

Participating physicians were instructed to enroll only “patients who, in their opinion, might potentially benefit from medication reduction due to one or more of the following existing characteristics: polypharmacy, comorbidity, nonadherence or dislike of medicines, or frailty,” the report notes.

They chose which antihypertensives would be dropped for each patient and “were given a medication reduction algorithm to assist with this decision.” Physicians also followed a guide for monitoring for safety issues and were told to reintroduce medications if systolic BP exceeded 150 mm Hg or diastolic BP rose above 90 mm Hg for more than 1 week or in the event of adverse events or signs of accelerated hypertension, the group wrote.

In the deprescription group, the mean systolic BP rose 4.3 points from baseline to 12 weeks, from 129.4 to 133.7 mm Hg. For those given usual care, mean systolic BP went from 130.5 to 130.8 mm Hg. Adjusted, the mean change in systolic BP was 3.4 mm Hg greater (P = .005) in the intervention group. The corresponding adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was a 2.2 mm Hg increase in the intervention group (P = .001).

Although the difference seems minimal, wrote Dr. Peterson and Dr. Rich, “such differences in BP can potentially lead to long-term differences in outcomes at the population level.”

Also, they pointed out, only about 10% of patients screened for enrollment actually entered the study, which brings into question the study’s generalizability, and “patients in the trial had relatively well-controlled BP at baseline.”

Dr. Sheppard said patients in the original screened population, taken from a national database, were directly invited to participate en masse by conventional mail, based on broad inclusion criteria. Far more than the number needed were invited, and nearly all of those excluded from the study had simply not responded to the invitation.

As for greater increases in systolic and diastolic pressures in the deprescribing group, the OPTIMISE authors acknowledged that “caution should be exercised when adopting this approach in routine clinical practice.”

His own view, Dr. Sheppard said, “is that there are some patients who will definitely benefit from intensive blood pressure lowering like you saw in the SPRINT trial. And there’s other patients who will benefit from deprescribing and having a slightly higher target. Those sorts of things very much need to be individualized at the patient level.”

And ideally, he added, clinicians in practice should probably be even more selective in choosing patients for a deprescribing strategy, “and focus on people who are at the highest risk of adverse events.”

Dr. Sheppard has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Peterson disclosed receiving personal fees from Cerner and Livongo and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen; Dr. Rick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Roughly 16%-22% of patients with hypertension appeared to have primary aldosteronism as the likely major cause of their elevated blood pressure, in an analysis of about 1,000 Americans, which is a much higher prevalence than previously appreciated and a finding that could potentially reorient both screening for aldosteronism and management for this subset of patients.

“Our findings show a high prevalence of unrecognized yet biochemically overt primary aldosteronism [PA] using current confirmatory diagnostic thresholds. They highlight the inadequacy of the current diagnostic approach that heavily relies on the ARR [aldosterone renin ratio] and, most important, show the existence of a pathologic continuum of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension,” wrote Jennifer M. Brown, MD, and coinvestigators in a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 25. “These findings support the need to redefine primary aldosteronism from a rare and categorical disease to, instead, a common syndrome that manifests across a broad severity spectrum and may be a primary contributor to hypertension pathogenesis,” they wrote in the report.

The results, showing an underappreciated prevalence of both overt and subtler forms of aldosteronism that link with hypertension, won praise from several experts for the potential of these findings to boost the profile of excess aldosterone as a common and treatable cause of high blood pressure, but opinions on the role for the ARR as a screen to identify affected patients were more mixed.

“ARR is still the best screening approach we have” for identifying people who likely have PA, especially when the ratio threshold for finding patients who need further investigation is reduced from the traditional level of 30 ng/dL to 20 ng/dL, commented Michael Stowasser, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and director of the Endocrine Hypertension Research Centre at Greenslopes and Princess Alexandra Hospitals in Brisbane. “I strongly recommend ARR testing in all newly diagnosed hypertensives.”

The study results “showed that PA is much more common than previously perceived, and suggest that perhaps PA in milder forms than we typically recognize contributes more to ‘essential’ hypertension than we previously thought,” said Anand Vaidya, MD, senior author of the report and director of the Center for Adrenal Disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The researchers found adjusted PA prevalence rates of 16% among 115 untreated patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), 22% among 203 patients with untreated stage 2 hypertension (at least 140/90 mm Hg), and 22% among 408 patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. All three prevalence rates were based on relatively conservative criteria that included all 726 patients with hypertension in the analysis (which also included 289 normotensive subjects) regardless of whether or not they also had low levels of serum renin. These PA prevalence rates were also based on a “conservative” definition of PA, a level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen.

When the researchers applied less stringent diagnostic criteria for PA or focused on the types of patients usually at highest risk for PA because of a suppressed renin level, the prevalence rates rose substantially and, in some subgroups, more than doubled. Of the 726 people with hypertension included in the analysis, 452 (62%) had suppressed renin (seated plasma renin activity < 1.0 mcg/L per hour or supine plasma renin activity < 0.6 mcg/L per hour). Within this subgroup of patients with suppressed renin, the adjusted prevalence of PA by the threshold of 24-hour urine aldosterone secretion of at least 12 mcg was 52% in those with treatment-resistant hypertension; among patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension the adjusted prevalence rates were just slightly above the rates in the entire study group. But among patients with suppressed renin who were judged to have PA by a more liberal definition of at least 10 mcg in a 24-hour urine sample, the adjusted prevalence rates were 27% among untreated stage 1 hypertensives, 40% among untreated stage 2 patients, and 58% among treatment-resistant patients, the report showed.
 

A role for subtler forms of aldosteronism

Defining PA as at least 12 mcg secreted in a 24-hour urine collection “is relatively arbitrary, and our findings show that it bisects a continuous distribution. How we should redefine PA is also arbitrary, but step one is to recognize that many people have milder forms of PA” that could have an important effect on blood pressure, Dr. Vaidya said in an interview.

“This is the very first study to show that aldosterone may be contributing to the hypertensive process even though it is not severe enough to be diagnosed as PA according to current criteria,” said Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and a coauthor on the new report. “More patients than we have ever known have an aldosterone component to their hypertension,” Dr. Carey said in an interview.

The new report on the prevalence of unrecognized PA in hypertensive patients “is a game changer,” wrote John W. Funder, MD, professor of medicine at Monash University in Clayton, Australia, in an editorial published along with the new report. In the editorial, he synthesized the new findings with results from prior reports to estimate that excess aldosteronism could play a clinically meaningful role in close to half of patients with hypertension, although Dr. Stowasser called this an “overestimate.” The new results also showed that “the single spot measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration, which clinicians have used for decades to screen for primary aldosteronism, is not merely useless but actually misleading. The authors cautioned readers about the uncertain representativeness of the study population to the U.S. population, but I believe that the findings are generalizable to the United States and elsewhere,” Dr. Funder wrote. “The central problem is that plasma aldosterone concentration is a very poor index of total daily aldosterone secretion. A single morning spot measurement of plasma aldosterone cannot take into account ultradian variation in aldosterone secretion.”
 

The importance of finding excess aldosterone

Identifying patients with hypertension and PA, as well as hypertensives with excess aldosterone production that may not meet the traditional definition of PA, is especially important because they are excellent candidates for two forms of targeted and very effective treatments that have a reliable and substantial impact on lowering blood pressure in these patients. One treatment is unilateral adrenal gland removal in patients who produce excess aldosterone because of benign adenomas in one adrenal gland, which accounts for “approximately 30%” of patients with PA. “Patients with suspected PA should have an opportunity to find out whether they have a unilateral variety and chance for surgical cure,” said Dr. Stowasser in an interview. “Patients with PA do far better in terms of blood pressure control, prevention of cardiovascular complications, and quality of life if they are treated specifically, either medically or particularly by surgery.”

The specific medical treatment he cited refers to one of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) drugs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), because mineralocorticoid receptor blockade directly short-circuits the path by which aldosterone increases blood pressure. “We’re advocating earlier use of MRAs” for hypertensive patients identified with excess aldosterone production, said Dr. Carey. He noted that alternative, nonsteroidal MRAs, such as finerenone, have shown promise for efficacy levels similar to what spironolactone provides but without as many adverse effects because of greater receptor specificity. Finerenone and other nonsteroidal MRAs are all currently investigational. Spironolactone and eplerenone both cause hyperkalemia, although treatment with potassium binding agents can blunt the risk this poses. Spironolactone also causes bothersome adverse effects in men, including impotence and gynecomastia because of its action on androgen receptors, effects that diminished with eplerenone, but eplerenone is not as effective as spironolactone, Dr. Carey said.
 

Study details

The new study ran a post hoc analysis on data collected in five independent studies run at centers in four U.S. locations: Birmingham, Ala.; Boston; Charlottesville, Va.; and Salt Lake City. The studies included a total of 1,846 adults, mostly patients with hypertension of varying severity but also several hundred normotensive people. Data on 24-hour sodium excretion during an oral sodium suppression test were available for all participants, and the researchers excluded 831 people with an “inadequate” sodium balance of less than 190 mmol based on this metric, leaving a study population of 1,015. The researchers acknowledged the limitation that the study participants were not representative of the U.S. population.

The analysis included 289 normotensive people not on any blood pressure–lowering medications, and 239 fit the definition of having suppressed renin. The adjusted prevalence of aldosteronism at the level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen was 11% among all 289 normotensive subjects and 12% among the 239 with suppressed renin. When the definition of aldosteronism loosened to at least 10 mcg excreted during 24 hours the adjusted prevalence of excess aldosterone among normotensives increased to 19% among the entire group and 20% among those with suppressed renin. This finding may have identified a primordial phase of nascent hypertension that needs further study but may eventually provide a new scenario for intervention. “If a normotensive person has compliant arteries and healthy kidneys they can handle the excess salt and volume load of PA,” but when compensatory mechanisms start falling short through aging or other deteriorations, then blood pressure starts to rise, suggested Dr. Vaidya.
 

Whom to screen for aldosteronism and how

While several experts agreed these findings added to an existing and growing literature showing that PA is common and needs greater diagnostic attention, they differed on what this may mean for the specifics of screening and diagnosis, especially at the primary care level.

“Our results showed more explicitly that excess aldosterone exists on a broad severity spectrum and can’t be regarded as a categorical diagnosis that a patient either has or does not have. The hard part is figuring out where we should begin interventions,” said Dr. Vaidya.

In his editorial, Dr. Funder wrote that “much of the present guideline needs to be jettisoned, and radically reconstructed recommendations should be developed.”

One answer may be to apply a less stringent ARR threshold for further work-up. Dr. Stowasser’s program in Brisbane, as well as some other groups worldwide, use an ARR of at least 20 ng/dL as an indication of possible PA. “If you lower the cutoff to 20 [ng/dL], and ignore the plasma aldosterone level, then the ARR should pick up the great majority of patients with PA,” he said.

Another controversial aspect is whether aldosterone detection should be screened by 24-hour urine collection or by spot testing. In his editorial, Dr. Funder called spot testing “useless” and “misleading,” but Dr. Vaidya acknowledged that the 24-hour collection used in his current study is “not practical” for widespread use. Despite that, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester has focused on 24-hour urine collected “for more than 4 decades,” said Dr. Young, even though “a morning blood sample remains a simple screening test” that will catch “more than 95% of patients with PA” when combined with a plasma aldosterone threshold of 10 ng/dL. Dr. Stowasser noted that “patients don’t like” 24-hour collection, and not infrequently muck up collection” by forgetting to collect their entire 1-day output. Regardless of its shortcomings, 24-hour urine has the advantage of greater precision and accuracy than spot measurement, and using it on newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who also show renin suppression may be a viable approach, Dr. Carey suggested.

Regardless of exactly how guidelines for assessing aldosterone in hypertensive patients change, prospects seem ripe for some sort of revision and for greater participation and buy-in by primary care physicians than in the past. Dr. Carey, who also served as vice-chair of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force that wrote the most current U.S. guideline for managing hypertension, said it was too soon to revise that document, but the time had come to revise the Endocrine Society’s 2016 guideline for diagnosing and treating PA and to hash out the revision “in partnership” with one or more primary care societies. He also highlighted that publishing the current study in a high-profile primary care journal was an intentional effort to reach a large segment of the primary care community.

The new report “has the potential to change the current state of inertia” over wider PA diagnosis and targeted treatment “by being published in a widely read, major international journal,” commented Dr. Stowasser.

Dr. Vaidya has been a consultant to Catalys Pacific, Corcept Therapeutics, HRA Pharma, Orphagen, and Selenity Therapeutics. None of the other report coauthors had commercial disclosures, including Dr. Carey. Dr. Funder, Dr. Stowasser, and Dr. Young had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown JM et al. Ann Int Med. 2020 May 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0065.
 

Roughly 16%-22% of patients with hypertension appeared to have primary aldosteronism as the likely major cause of their elevated blood pressure, in an analysis of about 1,000 Americans, which is a much higher prevalence than previously appreciated and a finding that could potentially reorient both screening for aldosteronism and management for this subset of patients.

“Our findings show a high prevalence of unrecognized yet biochemically overt primary aldosteronism [PA] using current confirmatory diagnostic thresholds. They highlight the inadequacy of the current diagnostic approach that heavily relies on the ARR [aldosterone renin ratio] and, most important, show the existence of a pathologic continuum of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension,” wrote Jennifer M. Brown, MD, and coinvestigators in a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 25. “These findings support the need to redefine primary aldosteronism from a rare and categorical disease to, instead, a common syndrome that manifests across a broad severity spectrum and may be a primary contributor to hypertension pathogenesis,” they wrote in the report.

The results, showing an underappreciated prevalence of both overt and subtler forms of aldosteronism that link with hypertension, won praise from several experts for the potential of these findings to boost the profile of excess aldosterone as a common and treatable cause of high blood pressure, but opinions on the role for the ARR as a screen to identify affected patients were more mixed.

“ARR is still the best screening approach we have” for identifying people who likely have PA, especially when the ratio threshold for finding patients who need further investigation is reduced from the traditional level of 30 ng/dL to 20 ng/dL, commented Michael Stowasser, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and director of the Endocrine Hypertension Research Centre at Greenslopes and Princess Alexandra Hospitals in Brisbane. “I strongly recommend ARR testing in all newly diagnosed hypertensives.”

The study results “showed that PA is much more common than previously perceived, and suggest that perhaps PA in milder forms than we typically recognize contributes more to ‘essential’ hypertension than we previously thought,” said Anand Vaidya, MD, senior author of the report and director of the Center for Adrenal Disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The researchers found adjusted PA prevalence rates of 16% among 115 untreated patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), 22% among 203 patients with untreated stage 2 hypertension (at least 140/90 mm Hg), and 22% among 408 patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. All three prevalence rates were based on relatively conservative criteria that included all 726 patients with hypertension in the analysis (which also included 289 normotensive subjects) regardless of whether or not they also had low levels of serum renin. These PA prevalence rates were also based on a “conservative” definition of PA, a level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen.

When the researchers applied less stringent diagnostic criteria for PA or focused on the types of patients usually at highest risk for PA because of a suppressed renin level, the prevalence rates rose substantially and, in some subgroups, more than doubled. Of the 726 people with hypertension included in the analysis, 452 (62%) had suppressed renin (seated plasma renin activity < 1.0 mcg/L per hour or supine plasma renin activity < 0.6 mcg/L per hour). Within this subgroup of patients with suppressed renin, the adjusted prevalence of PA by the threshold of 24-hour urine aldosterone secretion of at least 12 mcg was 52% in those with treatment-resistant hypertension; among patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension the adjusted prevalence rates were just slightly above the rates in the entire study group. But among patients with suppressed renin who were judged to have PA by a more liberal definition of at least 10 mcg in a 24-hour urine sample, the adjusted prevalence rates were 27% among untreated stage 1 hypertensives, 40% among untreated stage 2 patients, and 58% among treatment-resistant patients, the report showed.
 

A role for subtler forms of aldosteronism

Defining PA as at least 12 mcg secreted in a 24-hour urine collection “is relatively arbitrary, and our findings show that it bisects a continuous distribution. How we should redefine PA is also arbitrary, but step one is to recognize that many people have milder forms of PA” that could have an important effect on blood pressure, Dr. Vaidya said in an interview.

“This is the very first study to show that aldosterone may be contributing to the hypertensive process even though it is not severe enough to be diagnosed as PA according to current criteria,” said Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and a coauthor on the new report. “More patients than we have ever known have an aldosterone component to their hypertension,” Dr. Carey said in an interview.

The new report on the prevalence of unrecognized PA in hypertensive patients “is a game changer,” wrote John W. Funder, MD, professor of medicine at Monash University in Clayton, Australia, in an editorial published along with the new report. In the editorial, he synthesized the new findings with results from prior reports to estimate that excess aldosteronism could play a clinically meaningful role in close to half of patients with hypertension, although Dr. Stowasser called this an “overestimate.” The new results also showed that “the single spot measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration, which clinicians have used for decades to screen for primary aldosteronism, is not merely useless but actually misleading. The authors cautioned readers about the uncertain representativeness of the study population to the U.S. population, but I believe that the findings are generalizable to the United States and elsewhere,” Dr. Funder wrote. “The central problem is that plasma aldosterone concentration is a very poor index of total daily aldosterone secretion. A single morning spot measurement of plasma aldosterone cannot take into account ultradian variation in aldosterone secretion.”
 

The importance of finding excess aldosterone

Identifying patients with hypertension and PA, as well as hypertensives with excess aldosterone production that may not meet the traditional definition of PA, is especially important because they are excellent candidates for two forms of targeted and very effective treatments that have a reliable and substantial impact on lowering blood pressure in these patients. One treatment is unilateral adrenal gland removal in patients who produce excess aldosterone because of benign adenomas in one adrenal gland, which accounts for “approximately 30%” of patients with PA. “Patients with suspected PA should have an opportunity to find out whether they have a unilateral variety and chance for surgical cure,” said Dr. Stowasser in an interview. “Patients with PA do far better in terms of blood pressure control, prevention of cardiovascular complications, and quality of life if they are treated specifically, either medically or particularly by surgery.”

The specific medical treatment he cited refers to one of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) drugs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), because mineralocorticoid receptor blockade directly short-circuits the path by which aldosterone increases blood pressure. “We’re advocating earlier use of MRAs” for hypertensive patients identified with excess aldosterone production, said Dr. Carey. He noted that alternative, nonsteroidal MRAs, such as finerenone, have shown promise for efficacy levels similar to what spironolactone provides but without as many adverse effects because of greater receptor specificity. Finerenone and other nonsteroidal MRAs are all currently investigational. Spironolactone and eplerenone both cause hyperkalemia, although treatment with potassium binding agents can blunt the risk this poses. Spironolactone also causes bothersome adverse effects in men, including impotence and gynecomastia because of its action on androgen receptors, effects that diminished with eplerenone, but eplerenone is not as effective as spironolactone, Dr. Carey said.
 

Study details

The new study ran a post hoc analysis on data collected in five independent studies run at centers in four U.S. locations: Birmingham, Ala.; Boston; Charlottesville, Va.; and Salt Lake City. The studies included a total of 1,846 adults, mostly patients with hypertension of varying severity but also several hundred normotensive people. Data on 24-hour sodium excretion during an oral sodium suppression test were available for all participants, and the researchers excluded 831 people with an “inadequate” sodium balance of less than 190 mmol based on this metric, leaving a study population of 1,015. The researchers acknowledged the limitation that the study participants were not representative of the U.S. population.

The analysis included 289 normotensive people not on any blood pressure–lowering medications, and 239 fit the definition of having suppressed renin. The adjusted prevalence of aldosteronism at the level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen was 11% among all 289 normotensive subjects and 12% among the 239 with suppressed renin. When the definition of aldosteronism loosened to at least 10 mcg excreted during 24 hours the adjusted prevalence of excess aldosterone among normotensives increased to 19% among the entire group and 20% among those with suppressed renin. This finding may have identified a primordial phase of nascent hypertension that needs further study but may eventually provide a new scenario for intervention. “If a normotensive person has compliant arteries and healthy kidneys they can handle the excess salt and volume load of PA,” but when compensatory mechanisms start falling short through aging or other deteriorations, then blood pressure starts to rise, suggested Dr. Vaidya.
 

Whom to screen for aldosteronism and how

While several experts agreed these findings added to an existing and growing literature showing that PA is common and needs greater diagnostic attention, they differed on what this may mean for the specifics of screening and diagnosis, especially at the primary care level.

“Our results showed more explicitly that excess aldosterone exists on a broad severity spectrum and can’t be regarded as a categorical diagnosis that a patient either has or does not have. The hard part is figuring out where we should begin interventions,” said Dr. Vaidya.

In his editorial, Dr. Funder wrote that “much of the present guideline needs to be jettisoned, and radically reconstructed recommendations should be developed.”

One answer may be to apply a less stringent ARR threshold for further work-up. Dr. Stowasser’s program in Brisbane, as well as some other groups worldwide, use an ARR of at least 20 ng/dL as an indication of possible PA. “If you lower the cutoff to 20 [ng/dL], and ignore the plasma aldosterone level, then the ARR should pick up the great majority of patients with PA,” he said.

Another controversial aspect is whether aldosterone detection should be screened by 24-hour urine collection or by spot testing. In his editorial, Dr. Funder called spot testing “useless” and “misleading,” but Dr. Vaidya acknowledged that the 24-hour collection used in his current study is “not practical” for widespread use. Despite that, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester has focused on 24-hour urine collected “for more than 4 decades,” said Dr. Young, even though “a morning blood sample remains a simple screening test” that will catch “more than 95% of patients with PA” when combined with a plasma aldosterone threshold of 10 ng/dL. Dr. Stowasser noted that “patients don’t like” 24-hour collection, and not infrequently muck up collection” by forgetting to collect their entire 1-day output. Regardless of its shortcomings, 24-hour urine has the advantage of greater precision and accuracy than spot measurement, and using it on newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who also show renin suppression may be a viable approach, Dr. Carey suggested.

Regardless of exactly how guidelines for assessing aldosterone in hypertensive patients change, prospects seem ripe for some sort of revision and for greater participation and buy-in by primary care physicians than in the past. Dr. Carey, who also served as vice-chair of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force that wrote the most current U.S. guideline for managing hypertension, said it was too soon to revise that document, but the time had come to revise the Endocrine Society’s 2016 guideline for diagnosing and treating PA and to hash out the revision “in partnership” with one or more primary care societies. He also highlighted that publishing the current study in a high-profile primary care journal was an intentional effort to reach a large segment of the primary care community.

The new report “has the potential to change the current state of inertia” over wider PA diagnosis and targeted treatment “by being published in a widely read, major international journal,” commented Dr. Stowasser.

Dr. Vaidya has been a consultant to Catalys Pacific, Corcept Therapeutics, HRA Pharma, Orphagen, and Selenity Therapeutics. None of the other report coauthors had commercial disclosures, including Dr. Carey. Dr. Funder, Dr. Stowasser, and Dr. Young had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown JM et al. Ann Int Med. 2020 May 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0065.
 

Roughly 16%-22% of patients with hypertension appeared to have primary aldosteronism as the likely major cause of their elevated blood pressure, in an analysis of about 1,000 Americans, which is a much higher prevalence than previously appreciated and a finding that could potentially reorient both screening for aldosteronism and management for this subset of patients.

“Our findings show a high prevalence of unrecognized yet biochemically overt primary aldosteronism [PA] using current confirmatory diagnostic thresholds. They highlight the inadequacy of the current diagnostic approach that heavily relies on the ARR [aldosterone renin ratio] and, most important, show the existence of a pathologic continuum of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension,” wrote Jennifer M. Brown, MD, and coinvestigators in a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 25. “These findings support the need to redefine primary aldosteronism from a rare and categorical disease to, instead, a common syndrome that manifests across a broad severity spectrum and may be a primary contributor to hypertension pathogenesis,” they wrote in the report.

The results, showing an underappreciated prevalence of both overt and subtler forms of aldosteronism that link with hypertension, won praise from several experts for the potential of these findings to boost the profile of excess aldosterone as a common and treatable cause of high blood pressure, but opinions on the role for the ARR as a screen to identify affected patients were more mixed.

“ARR is still the best screening approach we have” for identifying people who likely have PA, especially when the ratio threshold for finding patients who need further investigation is reduced from the traditional level of 30 ng/dL to 20 ng/dL, commented Michael Stowasser, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and director of the Endocrine Hypertension Research Centre at Greenslopes and Princess Alexandra Hospitals in Brisbane. “I strongly recommend ARR testing in all newly diagnosed hypertensives.”

The study results “showed that PA is much more common than previously perceived, and suggest that perhaps PA in milder forms than we typically recognize contributes more to ‘essential’ hypertension than we previously thought,” said Anand Vaidya, MD, senior author of the report and director of the Center for Adrenal Disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The researchers found adjusted PA prevalence rates of 16% among 115 untreated patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), 22% among 203 patients with untreated stage 2 hypertension (at least 140/90 mm Hg), and 22% among 408 patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. All three prevalence rates were based on relatively conservative criteria that included all 726 patients with hypertension in the analysis (which also included 289 normotensive subjects) regardless of whether or not they also had low levels of serum renin. These PA prevalence rates were also based on a “conservative” definition of PA, a level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen.

When the researchers applied less stringent diagnostic criteria for PA or focused on the types of patients usually at highest risk for PA because of a suppressed renin level, the prevalence rates rose substantially and, in some subgroups, more than doubled. Of the 726 people with hypertension included in the analysis, 452 (62%) had suppressed renin (seated plasma renin activity < 1.0 mcg/L per hour or supine plasma renin activity < 0.6 mcg/L per hour). Within this subgroup of patients with suppressed renin, the adjusted prevalence of PA by the threshold of 24-hour urine aldosterone secretion of at least 12 mcg was 52% in those with treatment-resistant hypertension; among patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension the adjusted prevalence rates were just slightly above the rates in the entire study group. But among patients with suppressed renin who were judged to have PA by a more liberal definition of at least 10 mcg in a 24-hour urine sample, the adjusted prevalence rates were 27% among untreated stage 1 hypertensives, 40% among untreated stage 2 patients, and 58% among treatment-resistant patients, the report showed.
 

A role for subtler forms of aldosteronism

Defining PA as at least 12 mcg secreted in a 24-hour urine collection “is relatively arbitrary, and our findings show that it bisects a continuous distribution. How we should redefine PA is also arbitrary, but step one is to recognize that many people have milder forms of PA” that could have an important effect on blood pressure, Dr. Vaidya said in an interview.

“This is the very first study to show that aldosterone may be contributing to the hypertensive process even though it is not severe enough to be diagnosed as PA according to current criteria,” said Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and a coauthor on the new report. “More patients than we have ever known have an aldosterone component to their hypertension,” Dr. Carey said in an interview.

The new report on the prevalence of unrecognized PA in hypertensive patients “is a game changer,” wrote John W. Funder, MD, professor of medicine at Monash University in Clayton, Australia, in an editorial published along with the new report. In the editorial, he synthesized the new findings with results from prior reports to estimate that excess aldosteronism could play a clinically meaningful role in close to half of patients with hypertension, although Dr. Stowasser called this an “overestimate.” The new results also showed that “the single spot measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration, which clinicians have used for decades to screen for primary aldosteronism, is not merely useless but actually misleading. The authors cautioned readers about the uncertain representativeness of the study population to the U.S. population, but I believe that the findings are generalizable to the United States and elsewhere,” Dr. Funder wrote. “The central problem is that plasma aldosterone concentration is a very poor index of total daily aldosterone secretion. A single morning spot measurement of plasma aldosterone cannot take into account ultradian variation in aldosterone secretion.”
 

The importance of finding excess aldosterone

Identifying patients with hypertension and PA, as well as hypertensives with excess aldosterone production that may not meet the traditional definition of PA, is especially important because they are excellent candidates for two forms of targeted and very effective treatments that have a reliable and substantial impact on lowering blood pressure in these patients. One treatment is unilateral adrenal gland removal in patients who produce excess aldosterone because of benign adenomas in one adrenal gland, which accounts for “approximately 30%” of patients with PA. “Patients with suspected PA should have an opportunity to find out whether they have a unilateral variety and chance for surgical cure,” said Dr. Stowasser in an interview. “Patients with PA do far better in terms of blood pressure control, prevention of cardiovascular complications, and quality of life if they are treated specifically, either medically or particularly by surgery.”

The specific medical treatment he cited refers to one of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) drugs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), because mineralocorticoid receptor blockade directly short-circuits the path by which aldosterone increases blood pressure. “We’re advocating earlier use of MRAs” for hypertensive patients identified with excess aldosterone production, said Dr. Carey. He noted that alternative, nonsteroidal MRAs, such as finerenone, have shown promise for efficacy levels similar to what spironolactone provides but without as many adverse effects because of greater receptor specificity. Finerenone and other nonsteroidal MRAs are all currently investigational. Spironolactone and eplerenone both cause hyperkalemia, although treatment with potassium binding agents can blunt the risk this poses. Spironolactone also causes bothersome adverse effects in men, including impotence and gynecomastia because of its action on androgen receptors, effects that diminished with eplerenone, but eplerenone is not as effective as spironolactone, Dr. Carey said.
 

Study details

The new study ran a post hoc analysis on data collected in five independent studies run at centers in four U.S. locations: Birmingham, Ala.; Boston; Charlottesville, Va.; and Salt Lake City. The studies included a total of 1,846 adults, mostly patients with hypertension of varying severity but also several hundred normotensive people. Data on 24-hour sodium excretion during an oral sodium suppression test were available for all participants, and the researchers excluded 831 people with an “inadequate” sodium balance of less than 190 mmol based on this metric, leaving a study population of 1,015. The researchers acknowledged the limitation that the study participants were not representative of the U.S. population.

The analysis included 289 normotensive people not on any blood pressure–lowering medications, and 239 fit the definition of having suppressed renin. The adjusted prevalence of aldosteronism at the level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen was 11% among all 289 normotensive subjects and 12% among the 239 with suppressed renin. When the definition of aldosteronism loosened to at least 10 mcg excreted during 24 hours the adjusted prevalence of excess aldosterone among normotensives increased to 19% among the entire group and 20% among those with suppressed renin. This finding may have identified a primordial phase of nascent hypertension that needs further study but may eventually provide a new scenario for intervention. “If a normotensive person has compliant arteries and healthy kidneys they can handle the excess salt and volume load of PA,” but when compensatory mechanisms start falling short through aging or other deteriorations, then blood pressure starts to rise, suggested Dr. Vaidya.
 

Whom to screen for aldosteronism and how

While several experts agreed these findings added to an existing and growing literature showing that PA is common and needs greater diagnostic attention, they differed on what this may mean for the specifics of screening and diagnosis, especially at the primary care level.

“Our results showed more explicitly that excess aldosterone exists on a broad severity spectrum and can’t be regarded as a categorical diagnosis that a patient either has or does not have. The hard part is figuring out where we should begin interventions,” said Dr. Vaidya.

In his editorial, Dr. Funder wrote that “much of the present guideline needs to be jettisoned, and radically reconstructed recommendations should be developed.”

One answer may be to apply a less stringent ARR threshold for further work-up. Dr. Stowasser’s program in Brisbane, as well as some other groups worldwide, use an ARR of at least 20 ng/dL as an indication of possible PA. “If you lower the cutoff to 20 [ng/dL], and ignore the plasma aldosterone level, then the ARR should pick up the great majority of patients with PA,” he said.

Another controversial aspect is whether aldosterone detection should be screened by 24-hour urine collection or by spot testing. In his editorial, Dr. Funder called spot testing “useless” and “misleading,” but Dr. Vaidya acknowledged that the 24-hour collection used in his current study is “not practical” for widespread use. Despite that, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester has focused on 24-hour urine collected “for more than 4 decades,” said Dr. Young, even though “a morning blood sample remains a simple screening test” that will catch “more than 95% of patients with PA” when combined with a plasma aldosterone threshold of 10 ng/dL. Dr. Stowasser noted that “patients don’t like” 24-hour collection, and not infrequently muck up collection” by forgetting to collect their entire 1-day output. Regardless of its shortcomings, 24-hour urine has the advantage of greater precision and accuracy than spot measurement, and using it on newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who also show renin suppression may be a viable approach, Dr. Carey suggested.

Regardless of exactly how guidelines for assessing aldosterone in hypertensive patients change, prospects seem ripe for some sort of revision and for greater participation and buy-in by primary care physicians than in the past. Dr. Carey, who also served as vice-chair of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force that wrote the most current U.S. guideline for managing hypertension, said it was too soon to revise that document, but the time had come to revise the Endocrine Society’s 2016 guideline for diagnosing and treating PA and to hash out the revision “in partnership” with one or more primary care societies. He also highlighted that publishing the current study in a high-profile primary care journal was an intentional effort to reach a large segment of the primary care community.

The new report “has the potential to change the current state of inertia” over wider PA diagnosis and targeted treatment “by being published in a widely read, major international journal,” commented Dr. Stowasser.

Dr. Vaidya has been a consultant to Catalys Pacific, Corcept Therapeutics, HRA Pharma, Orphagen, and Selenity Therapeutics. None of the other report coauthors had commercial disclosures, including Dr. Carey. Dr. Funder, Dr. Stowasser, and Dr. Young had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown JM et al. Ann Int Med. 2020 May 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0065.
 

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[email protected]

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[email protected]

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[email protected]

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

Higher cardiovascular risk burden, as measured by the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score (FGCRS), is associated with neurodegenerative signs in the brain and may predict cognitive decline over time.

“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.

“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”

Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
 

Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition

The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).

Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.

A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.

Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.

At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.

Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.

The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.

Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early

Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.

“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.

“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”

Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.

Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.

Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.

Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.

The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.

Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher cardiovascular risk burden, as measured by the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score (FGCRS), is associated with neurodegenerative signs in the brain and may predict cognitive decline over time.

“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.

“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”

Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
 

Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition

The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).

Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.

A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.

Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.

At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.

Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.

The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.

Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early

Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.

“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.

“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”

Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.

Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.

Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.

Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.

The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.

Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher cardiovascular risk burden, as measured by the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score (FGCRS), is associated with neurodegenerative signs in the brain and may predict cognitive decline over time.

“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.

“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”

Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
 

Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition

The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).

Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.

A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.

Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.

At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.

Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.

The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.

Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early

Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.

“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.

“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”

Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.

Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.

Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.

Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.

The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.

Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.

The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.

“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.

The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.

The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.

In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
 

Derivation cohort

Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.

Validation cohort

Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.

With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).

“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.

Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.

“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.

SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.

A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.

The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.

“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.

The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.

The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.

In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
 

Derivation cohort

Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.

Validation cohort

Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.

With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).

“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.

Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.

“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.

SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.

A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.

The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.

“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.

The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.

The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.

In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
 

Derivation cohort

Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.

Validation cohort

Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.

With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).

“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.

Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.

“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.

SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.

Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.

Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.

Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, the results do not suggest that continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs causes harm. However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.

Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
 

Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”

But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.

In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).

In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.

In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).

The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”

“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.

A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.

A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.

In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.

In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.

In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.

Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.

In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.

“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.

In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.

After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
 

Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?

A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.

Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.

“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.

“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”

The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”

Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.

“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.

He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”

Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”

Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.

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

Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.

Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.

Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, the results do not suggest that continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs causes harm. However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.

Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
 

Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”

But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.

In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).

In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.

In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).

The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”

“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.

A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.

A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.

In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.

In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.

In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.

Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.

In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.

“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.

In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.

After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
 

Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?

A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.

Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.

“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.

“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”

The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”

Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.

“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.

He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”

Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”

Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.

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

Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.

Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.

Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, the results do not suggest that continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs causes harm. However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.

Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
 

Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”

But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.

In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).

In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.

In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).

The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”

“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.

A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.

A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.

In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.

In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.

In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.

Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.

In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.

“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.

In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.

After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
 

Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?

A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.

Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.

“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.

“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”

The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”

Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.

“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.

He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”

Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”

Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.

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

Women with cardiovascular conditions who are planning pregnancy should be assessed and managed by a multidisciplinary team to ensure the best outcomes, according to a statement from the American Heart Association.

©American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, and accounted for approximately 17 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015, wrote Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

Ideally, a woman with CVD at the time of pregnancy should be managed by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team that can assess cardiovascular risk, obstetric risk, and fetal risk throughout pregnancy, delivery, and up to a year post partum. The team should develop a shared strategy to promote best outcomes, according to the statement. The cardio-obstetrics team may include obstetricians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, geneticists, neurologists, nurses, and pharmacists, according to the statement.

Women with preexisting CVD should receive counseling about maternal and fetal risks before conception, if possible, to involve the women in shared decision-making and to develop strategies for each stage of pregnancy and delivery, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Such counseling should include a review of all medications and assessment of risk factors.

However, some women present already in the early stages of pregnancy even with severe conditions such as pulmonary arterial hypertension, severe ventricular dysfunction, severe left-sided heart obstruction, and significant aortic dilatation with underlying connective tissue disease. Women with these conditions often are counseled to avoid pregnancy, but if they already are pregnant, a high-risk cardio-obstetrics team will need to work together to discover the best strategies going forward to mitigate risk, Dr. Mehta and associates said.

Common CVD conditions that affect pregnancy include hypertensive disorders, notably preeclampsia, defined as systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg in women after 20 weeks of gestation whose blood pressure was normal prior to pregnancy. A management strategy to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications from hypertension includes healthy lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation, according to the statement. However, patients with severe hypertension may require intravenous labetalol or hydralazine. The statement gives more information about handling preeclampsia with pulmonary edema, and prevention of eclampsia and treatment of seizures.

It is important to recognize that severe hypertension or superimposed preeclampsia may occur for the first time post partum. Early ambulatory visits in the first 1-2 weeks are sensible. Medications may be needed to keep a systolic blood pressure not higher than 150 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure not higher than 100 mm Hg, Dr. Mehta and associates said.

According to the statement, severe hypertriglyceridemia and familial hypercholesterolemia are the two most common conditions in which lipids should be addressed during pregnancy, with consideration of the fetal risks associated with certain medications.

“Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy, and all women who are on any lipid-lowering agents should review with their physician the safety of treatment during pregnancy and whether to discontinue treatment before pregnancy,” according to the statement. A heart-healthy lifestyle can help improve lipid profiles in all pregnant patients, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Patients with extremely high triglycerides above 500 mg/dL are at risk of pancreatitis and “may benefit from pharmacological agents (omega-3 fatty acids with or without fenofibrate or gemfibrozil) during the second trimester,” they noted. Pregnant women with familial hypercholesterolemia might take bile acid sequestrants, or as a last resort, low-density lipoprotein apheresis.

Other conditions calling for a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetric approach include preexisting coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and deep venous thrombosis, according to the statement, which provides information about the risks, diagnosis, and management.

When it is time for delivery, spontaneous labor and vaginal birth are preferable for most women with heart disease, as cesarean delivery is associated with increased risk of infection, thrombotic complications, and blood loss, according to the statement.

Women with CVD and associated complications will require “specialized long-term cardiovascular follow-up,” Dr. Mehta and associates said. “In women with a high-risk pregnancy, a cardio-obstetrics team is essential to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality during the length of the pregnancy and post partum.”

“The release of this document demonstrates the AHA’s recognition of the importance of CVD in pregnancy-related death and their commitment to education and ensuring best practices in this field,” said Lisa M. Hollier, MD, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Health Plan, Bellaire.

“I think one of the most important outcomes from the release of this scientific statement from AHA will be increased implementation of cardio-obstetrics teams,” she said in an interview.

“In the United States, cardiovascular disease and cardiomyopathy together are now the leading cause of death in pregnancy and the postpartum period, and constitute 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, with higher rates of mortality among women of color and women with lower incomes,” she said. “The rising trend in cardiovascular-related maternal deaths appears to be due to acquired, not congenital, heart disease.”

During her tenure as president of ACOG, Dr. Hollier convened a task force on cardiovascular disease in pregnancy that developed guidance that outlines screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women from prepregnancy through post partum.

Dr. Hollier noted that COVID-19 emphasizes racial disparities for maternal mortality.

“Pregnant patients with comorbidities, like heart conditions, may be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 – consistent with the general population with similar comorbidities,” she said. “And as we know, black women’s risk of dying from CVD-related pregnancy complications is 3.4 times higher than that of white women. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing these racial health disparities exacerbated.”

However, any pregnant patients should not hesitate to communicate with their health care providers despite the pandemic situation, Dr. Hollier emphasized. “Communication between a patient and her ob.gyn., cardiologist, or other clinician is even more critical now during the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re hearing reports that patients who are experiencing symptoms or those with known cardiac conditions are avoiding the hospital and delaying or not seeking necessary treatment. This has the very real possibility of worsening the devastating maternal mortality crisis that we’re already experiencing in this country.”

To help overcome barriers to treatment, “collaboration between ob.gyns. and cardiologists, such as the cardio-obstetrics team or pregnancy heart team, is critical,” said Dr. Hollier. “These collaborative teams with a multidisciplinary approach can prospectively reduce the communication gaps across specialties when patients are seen separately. They can also improve the communication during care transitions such as between outpatient and inpatient care.


“In reviews of maternal deaths, we have found that there are often delays in diagnosis of heart conditions during and after pregnancy,” Dr. Hollier added. “Most maternal deaths from CVD are due to either undiagnosed cardiovascular disease or new-onset cardiomyopathy. ACOG recommends that all women be assessed for cardiovascular disease in the antepartum and postpartum periods using a recently developed algorithm,” she said. “Women who have known CVD and women who have concerning symptoms should have a consultation with this team. With increased awareness and screening, women can receive the additional care that they need.

“Because management of cardiac conditions in pregnancy is so complex, it is important to ensure that women receive care with teams and in facilities that have appropriate resources,” explained Dr. Hollier. “Women with known heart disease should see a cardiologist prior to pregnancy and receive prepregnancy counseling,” as noted in the AHA statement. “Patients determined to have moderate and high-risk CVD should be managed during pregnancy, delivery, and post partum in a medical center that is able to provide a higher level of care, including a cardio-obstetrics team.”

Early recognition of cardiovascular conditions is essential to help manage care and reduce risks to mother and baby, said Dr. Hollier. “Identification before a woman becomes pregnant means the patient’s care can be properly managed throughout the pregnancy and a detailed delivery plan can be developed through shared decision making between the patient and provider. We must think of heart disease as a possibility in every pregnant or postpartum patient we see to detect and treat at-risk mothers,” she said.

Additional research should focus on identifying risk factors prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Hollier. “There are often delays in recognizing symptoms during pregnancy and post partum, particularly for black women. We need data to understand which protocols are best to identify heart disease,”

Dr. Hollier had no financial conflicts to disclose. The authors of the AHA statement had no financial conflicts to disclose. The scientific statement was produced on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Stroke Council.

SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772.

Women with cardiovascular conditions who are planning pregnancy should be assessed and managed by a multidisciplinary team to ensure the best outcomes, according to a statement from the American Heart Association.

©American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, and accounted for approximately 17 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015, wrote Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

Ideally, a woman with CVD at the time of pregnancy should be managed by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team that can assess cardiovascular risk, obstetric risk, and fetal risk throughout pregnancy, delivery, and up to a year post partum. The team should develop a shared strategy to promote best outcomes, according to the statement. The cardio-obstetrics team may include obstetricians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, geneticists, neurologists, nurses, and pharmacists, according to the statement.

Women with preexisting CVD should receive counseling about maternal and fetal risks before conception, if possible, to involve the women in shared decision-making and to develop strategies for each stage of pregnancy and delivery, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Such counseling should include a review of all medications and assessment of risk factors.

However, some women present already in the early stages of pregnancy even with severe conditions such as pulmonary arterial hypertension, severe ventricular dysfunction, severe left-sided heart obstruction, and significant aortic dilatation with underlying connective tissue disease. Women with these conditions often are counseled to avoid pregnancy, but if they already are pregnant, a high-risk cardio-obstetrics team will need to work together to discover the best strategies going forward to mitigate risk, Dr. Mehta and associates said.

Common CVD conditions that affect pregnancy include hypertensive disorders, notably preeclampsia, defined as systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg in women after 20 weeks of gestation whose blood pressure was normal prior to pregnancy. A management strategy to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications from hypertension includes healthy lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation, according to the statement. However, patients with severe hypertension may require intravenous labetalol or hydralazine. The statement gives more information about handling preeclampsia with pulmonary edema, and prevention of eclampsia and treatment of seizures.

It is important to recognize that severe hypertension or superimposed preeclampsia may occur for the first time post partum. Early ambulatory visits in the first 1-2 weeks are sensible. Medications may be needed to keep a systolic blood pressure not higher than 150 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure not higher than 100 mm Hg, Dr. Mehta and associates said.

According to the statement, severe hypertriglyceridemia and familial hypercholesterolemia are the two most common conditions in which lipids should be addressed during pregnancy, with consideration of the fetal risks associated with certain medications.

“Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy, and all women who are on any lipid-lowering agents should review with their physician the safety of treatment during pregnancy and whether to discontinue treatment before pregnancy,” according to the statement. A heart-healthy lifestyle can help improve lipid profiles in all pregnant patients, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Patients with extremely high triglycerides above 500 mg/dL are at risk of pancreatitis and “may benefit from pharmacological agents (omega-3 fatty acids with or without fenofibrate or gemfibrozil) during the second trimester,” they noted. Pregnant women with familial hypercholesterolemia might take bile acid sequestrants, or as a last resort, low-density lipoprotein apheresis.

Other conditions calling for a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetric approach include preexisting coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and deep venous thrombosis, according to the statement, which provides information about the risks, diagnosis, and management.

When it is time for delivery, spontaneous labor and vaginal birth are preferable for most women with heart disease, as cesarean delivery is associated with increased risk of infection, thrombotic complications, and blood loss, according to the statement.

Women with CVD and associated complications will require “specialized long-term cardiovascular follow-up,” Dr. Mehta and associates said. “In women with a high-risk pregnancy, a cardio-obstetrics team is essential to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality during the length of the pregnancy and post partum.”

“The release of this document demonstrates the AHA’s recognition of the importance of CVD in pregnancy-related death and their commitment to education and ensuring best practices in this field,” said Lisa M. Hollier, MD, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Health Plan, Bellaire.

“I think one of the most important outcomes from the release of this scientific statement from AHA will be increased implementation of cardio-obstetrics teams,” she said in an interview.

“In the United States, cardiovascular disease and cardiomyopathy together are now the leading cause of death in pregnancy and the postpartum period, and constitute 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, with higher rates of mortality among women of color and women with lower incomes,” she said. “The rising trend in cardiovascular-related maternal deaths appears to be due to acquired, not congenital, heart disease.”

During her tenure as president of ACOG, Dr. Hollier convened a task force on cardiovascular disease in pregnancy that developed guidance that outlines screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women from prepregnancy through post partum.

Dr. Hollier noted that COVID-19 emphasizes racial disparities for maternal mortality.

“Pregnant patients with comorbidities, like heart conditions, may be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 – consistent with the general population with similar comorbidities,” she said. “And as we know, black women’s risk of dying from CVD-related pregnancy complications is 3.4 times higher than that of white women. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing these racial health disparities exacerbated.”

However, any pregnant patients should not hesitate to communicate with their health care providers despite the pandemic situation, Dr. Hollier emphasized. “Communication between a patient and her ob.gyn., cardiologist, or other clinician is even more critical now during the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re hearing reports that patients who are experiencing symptoms or those with known cardiac conditions are avoiding the hospital and delaying or not seeking necessary treatment. This has the very real possibility of worsening the devastating maternal mortality crisis that we’re already experiencing in this country.”

To help overcome barriers to treatment, “collaboration between ob.gyns. and cardiologists, such as the cardio-obstetrics team or pregnancy heart team, is critical,” said Dr. Hollier. “These collaborative teams with a multidisciplinary approach can prospectively reduce the communication gaps across specialties when patients are seen separately. They can also improve the communication during care transitions such as between outpatient and inpatient care.


“In reviews of maternal deaths, we have found that there are often delays in diagnosis of heart conditions during and after pregnancy,” Dr. Hollier added. “Most maternal deaths from CVD are due to either undiagnosed cardiovascular disease or new-onset cardiomyopathy. ACOG recommends that all women be assessed for cardiovascular disease in the antepartum and postpartum periods using a recently developed algorithm,” she said. “Women who have known CVD and women who have concerning symptoms should have a consultation with this team. With increased awareness and screening, women can receive the additional care that they need.

“Because management of cardiac conditions in pregnancy is so complex, it is important to ensure that women receive care with teams and in facilities that have appropriate resources,” explained Dr. Hollier. “Women with known heart disease should see a cardiologist prior to pregnancy and receive prepregnancy counseling,” as noted in the AHA statement. “Patients determined to have moderate and high-risk CVD should be managed during pregnancy, delivery, and post partum in a medical center that is able to provide a higher level of care, including a cardio-obstetrics team.”

Early recognition of cardiovascular conditions is essential to help manage care and reduce risks to mother and baby, said Dr. Hollier. “Identification before a woman becomes pregnant means the patient’s care can be properly managed throughout the pregnancy and a detailed delivery plan can be developed through shared decision making between the patient and provider. We must think of heart disease as a possibility in every pregnant or postpartum patient we see to detect and treat at-risk mothers,” she said.

Additional research should focus on identifying risk factors prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Hollier. “There are often delays in recognizing symptoms during pregnancy and post partum, particularly for black women. We need data to understand which protocols are best to identify heart disease,”

Dr. Hollier had no financial conflicts to disclose. The authors of the AHA statement had no financial conflicts to disclose. The scientific statement was produced on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Stroke Council.

SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772.

Women with cardiovascular conditions who are planning pregnancy should be assessed and managed by a multidisciplinary team to ensure the best outcomes, according to a statement from the American Heart Association.

©American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, and accounted for approximately 17 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015, wrote Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

Ideally, a woman with CVD at the time of pregnancy should be managed by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team that can assess cardiovascular risk, obstetric risk, and fetal risk throughout pregnancy, delivery, and up to a year post partum. The team should develop a shared strategy to promote best outcomes, according to the statement. The cardio-obstetrics team may include obstetricians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, geneticists, neurologists, nurses, and pharmacists, according to the statement.

Women with preexisting CVD should receive counseling about maternal and fetal risks before conception, if possible, to involve the women in shared decision-making and to develop strategies for each stage of pregnancy and delivery, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Such counseling should include a review of all medications and assessment of risk factors.

However, some women present already in the early stages of pregnancy even with severe conditions such as pulmonary arterial hypertension, severe ventricular dysfunction, severe left-sided heart obstruction, and significant aortic dilatation with underlying connective tissue disease. Women with these conditions often are counseled to avoid pregnancy, but if they already are pregnant, a high-risk cardio-obstetrics team will need to work together to discover the best strategies going forward to mitigate risk, Dr. Mehta and associates said.

Common CVD conditions that affect pregnancy include hypertensive disorders, notably preeclampsia, defined as systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg in women after 20 weeks of gestation whose blood pressure was normal prior to pregnancy. A management strategy to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications from hypertension includes healthy lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation, according to the statement. However, patients with severe hypertension may require intravenous labetalol or hydralazine. The statement gives more information about handling preeclampsia with pulmonary edema, and prevention of eclampsia and treatment of seizures.

It is important to recognize that severe hypertension or superimposed preeclampsia may occur for the first time post partum. Early ambulatory visits in the first 1-2 weeks are sensible. Medications may be needed to keep a systolic blood pressure not higher than 150 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure not higher than 100 mm Hg, Dr. Mehta and associates said.

According to the statement, severe hypertriglyceridemia and familial hypercholesterolemia are the two most common conditions in which lipids should be addressed during pregnancy, with consideration of the fetal risks associated with certain medications.

“Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy, and all women who are on any lipid-lowering agents should review with their physician the safety of treatment during pregnancy and whether to discontinue treatment before pregnancy,” according to the statement. A heart-healthy lifestyle can help improve lipid profiles in all pregnant patients, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Patients with extremely high triglycerides above 500 mg/dL are at risk of pancreatitis and “may benefit from pharmacological agents (omega-3 fatty acids with or without fenofibrate or gemfibrozil) during the second trimester,” they noted. Pregnant women with familial hypercholesterolemia might take bile acid sequestrants, or as a last resort, low-density lipoprotein apheresis.

Other conditions calling for a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetric approach include preexisting coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and deep venous thrombosis, according to the statement, which provides information about the risks, diagnosis, and management.

When it is time for delivery, spontaneous labor and vaginal birth are preferable for most women with heart disease, as cesarean delivery is associated with increased risk of infection, thrombotic complications, and blood loss, according to the statement.

Women with CVD and associated complications will require “specialized long-term cardiovascular follow-up,” Dr. Mehta and associates said. “In women with a high-risk pregnancy, a cardio-obstetrics team is essential to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality during the length of the pregnancy and post partum.”

“The release of this document demonstrates the AHA’s recognition of the importance of CVD in pregnancy-related death and their commitment to education and ensuring best practices in this field,” said Lisa M. Hollier, MD, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Health Plan, Bellaire.

“I think one of the most important outcomes from the release of this scientific statement from AHA will be increased implementation of cardio-obstetrics teams,” she said in an interview.

“In the United States, cardiovascular disease and cardiomyopathy together are now the leading cause of death in pregnancy and the postpartum period, and constitute 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, with higher rates of mortality among women of color and women with lower incomes,” she said. “The rising trend in cardiovascular-related maternal deaths appears to be due to acquired, not congenital, heart disease.”

During her tenure as president of ACOG, Dr. Hollier convened a task force on cardiovascular disease in pregnancy that developed guidance that outlines screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women from prepregnancy through post partum.

Dr. Hollier noted that COVID-19 emphasizes racial disparities for maternal mortality.

“Pregnant patients with comorbidities, like heart conditions, may be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 – consistent with the general population with similar comorbidities,” she said. “And as we know, black women’s risk of dying from CVD-related pregnancy complications is 3.4 times higher than that of white women. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing these racial health disparities exacerbated.”

However, any pregnant patients should not hesitate to communicate with their health care providers despite the pandemic situation, Dr. Hollier emphasized. “Communication between a patient and her ob.gyn., cardiologist, or other clinician is even more critical now during the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re hearing reports that patients who are experiencing symptoms or those with known cardiac conditions are avoiding the hospital and delaying or not seeking necessary treatment. This has the very real possibility of worsening the devastating maternal mortality crisis that we’re already experiencing in this country.”

To help overcome barriers to treatment, “collaboration between ob.gyns. and cardiologists, such as the cardio-obstetrics team or pregnancy heart team, is critical,” said Dr. Hollier. “These collaborative teams with a multidisciplinary approach can prospectively reduce the communication gaps across specialties when patients are seen separately. They can also improve the communication during care transitions such as between outpatient and inpatient care.


“In reviews of maternal deaths, we have found that there are often delays in diagnosis of heart conditions during and after pregnancy,” Dr. Hollier added. “Most maternal deaths from CVD are due to either undiagnosed cardiovascular disease or new-onset cardiomyopathy. ACOG recommends that all women be assessed for cardiovascular disease in the antepartum and postpartum periods using a recently developed algorithm,” she said. “Women who have known CVD and women who have concerning symptoms should have a consultation with this team. With increased awareness and screening, women can receive the additional care that they need.

“Because management of cardiac conditions in pregnancy is so complex, it is important to ensure that women receive care with teams and in facilities that have appropriate resources,” explained Dr. Hollier. “Women with known heart disease should see a cardiologist prior to pregnancy and receive prepregnancy counseling,” as noted in the AHA statement. “Patients determined to have moderate and high-risk CVD should be managed during pregnancy, delivery, and post partum in a medical center that is able to provide a higher level of care, including a cardio-obstetrics team.”

Early recognition of cardiovascular conditions is essential to help manage care and reduce risks to mother and baby, said Dr. Hollier. “Identification before a woman becomes pregnant means the patient’s care can be properly managed throughout the pregnancy and a detailed delivery plan can be developed through shared decision making between the patient and provider. We must think of heart disease as a possibility in every pregnant or postpartum patient we see to detect and treat at-risk mothers,” she said.

Additional research should focus on identifying risk factors prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Hollier. “There are often delays in recognizing symptoms during pregnancy and post partum, particularly for black women. We need data to understand which protocols are best to identify heart disease,”

Dr. Hollier had no financial conflicts to disclose. The authors of the AHA statement had no financial conflicts to disclose. The scientific statement was produced on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Stroke Council.

SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772.

Diastolic dysfunction, a common and often undiagnosed condition in older individuals, could be contributing to the increasing burden of cognitive decline, a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.

“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.

This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.

“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.

“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.

Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.

The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.

Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).

An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.

Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).

Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).

The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.

The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.

Earlier interventions

Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”

Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”

Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.

Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.

“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.

With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.

About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.

Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Diastolic dysfunction, a common and often undiagnosed condition in older individuals, could be contributing to the increasing burden of cognitive decline, a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.

“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.

This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.

“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.

“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.

Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.

The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.

Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).

An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.

Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).

Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).

The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.

The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.

Earlier interventions

Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”

Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”

Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.

Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.

“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.

With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.

About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.

Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Diastolic dysfunction, a common and often undiagnosed condition in older individuals, could be contributing to the increasing burden of cognitive decline, a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.

“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.

This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.

“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.

“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.

Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.

The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.

Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).

An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.

Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).

Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).

The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.

The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.

Earlier interventions

Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”

Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”

Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.

Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.

“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.

With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.

About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.

Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.