User login
SPRINT-type BP control provides up to 3 years of additional life
PHILADELPHIA – in age-dependent fashion, compared with the older target standard BP, according to a novel analysis of data from the landmark SPRINT trial.
SPRINT randomized 9,361 hypertensive patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to intensive control with a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg or to the then-standard target of less than 140 mm Hg. The trial was stopped early for ethical reasons when an interim analysis showed intensive control was associated with a 27% reduction in mortality. But that 27% reduction in mortality risk is a tough concept for many patients to interpret in practical terms, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So he and his coinvestigators sliced and diced the mountainous SPRINT data in a novel way, using an actuarial statistical analysis.
“These actuarial data from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive blood pressure control, especially when initiated in middle-aged, high-risk adults. Our analysis really reaffirms the original SPRINT trial results [N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16] and helps present them in an alternative format that can potentially be more easily communicated to clinicians, patients, and the public at large,” explained Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The impact of intensive BP control on residual survival was magnified in patients who were younger, since they intrinsically have a longer expected survival and will apply the antihypertensive regimen over a longer period. For example, the actuarial analysis concluded that the mean survival benefit of starting intensive BP lowering, rather than settling for a target systolic BP of less than 140 mm Hg starting at age 50 years, was 3 additional years of life, as compared with 1.1 additional years in 65-year-olds and 0.5 years in patients aged 85 years or older. The same approach can be applied to patients at any individual age from 50 to 95 years at the time of enrollment.
“This is very helpful in conveying messages to individual patients. Often if you tell a patient: ‘Your risk is going to go down by 27%,’ it’s tough for them to recognize what the baseline is and if that actually applied to them. So this may personalize that decision-making conversation,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member commented that this SPRINT analysis might actually underestimate the true survival advantage of intensive BP lowering. He noted that SPRINT, which was halted after an average of 3.3 years, didn’t show a significant benefit for intensive BP lowering in terms of stroke reduction, whereas the ACCORD trial did, but that benefit didn’t occur until after 3 years into the study (Hypertension. 2018 Aug;72[2]:323-30).
Dr. Vaduganathan conceded that’s a limitation of his analysis.
“The assumption we’ve used is that long-term cardiovascular benefits are going to be as seen in the trial, but since SPRINT was stopped early, some benefits may be exaggerated and some may not have been observed yet,” he agreed.
Another audience member observed, “I think a lot of patients will think: ‘Okay, you’re tacking on a year at the end, when I’m going to be 89 and demented.’ The National Institute on Aging is focusing a lot more now on nondisabled life expectancy or healthy life expectancy.’”
Dr. Vaduganathan offered a degree of reassurance on this score. Because of time limitations, he said, he only presented the life expectancy results. But he and his coworkers have performed the same actuarial analysis of the SPRINT data for other endpoints related to freedom from various forms of disease or disability and found a consistent effect: Intensive BP control was associated with a longer time to onset of morbidity.
SPRINT was sponsored primarily by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Vaduganathan reported that he receives research support from/and or serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa.
SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. AHA 2019, Abstract MDP233.
PHILADELPHIA – in age-dependent fashion, compared with the older target standard BP, according to a novel analysis of data from the landmark SPRINT trial.
SPRINT randomized 9,361 hypertensive patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to intensive control with a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg or to the then-standard target of less than 140 mm Hg. The trial was stopped early for ethical reasons when an interim analysis showed intensive control was associated with a 27% reduction in mortality. But that 27% reduction in mortality risk is a tough concept for many patients to interpret in practical terms, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So he and his coinvestigators sliced and diced the mountainous SPRINT data in a novel way, using an actuarial statistical analysis.
“These actuarial data from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive blood pressure control, especially when initiated in middle-aged, high-risk adults. Our analysis really reaffirms the original SPRINT trial results [N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16] and helps present them in an alternative format that can potentially be more easily communicated to clinicians, patients, and the public at large,” explained Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The impact of intensive BP control on residual survival was magnified in patients who were younger, since they intrinsically have a longer expected survival and will apply the antihypertensive regimen over a longer period. For example, the actuarial analysis concluded that the mean survival benefit of starting intensive BP lowering, rather than settling for a target systolic BP of less than 140 mm Hg starting at age 50 years, was 3 additional years of life, as compared with 1.1 additional years in 65-year-olds and 0.5 years in patients aged 85 years or older. The same approach can be applied to patients at any individual age from 50 to 95 years at the time of enrollment.
“This is very helpful in conveying messages to individual patients. Often if you tell a patient: ‘Your risk is going to go down by 27%,’ it’s tough for them to recognize what the baseline is and if that actually applied to them. So this may personalize that decision-making conversation,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member commented that this SPRINT analysis might actually underestimate the true survival advantage of intensive BP lowering. He noted that SPRINT, which was halted after an average of 3.3 years, didn’t show a significant benefit for intensive BP lowering in terms of stroke reduction, whereas the ACCORD trial did, but that benefit didn’t occur until after 3 years into the study (Hypertension. 2018 Aug;72[2]:323-30).
Dr. Vaduganathan conceded that’s a limitation of his analysis.
“The assumption we’ve used is that long-term cardiovascular benefits are going to be as seen in the trial, but since SPRINT was stopped early, some benefits may be exaggerated and some may not have been observed yet,” he agreed.
Another audience member observed, “I think a lot of patients will think: ‘Okay, you’re tacking on a year at the end, when I’m going to be 89 and demented.’ The National Institute on Aging is focusing a lot more now on nondisabled life expectancy or healthy life expectancy.’”
Dr. Vaduganathan offered a degree of reassurance on this score. Because of time limitations, he said, he only presented the life expectancy results. But he and his coworkers have performed the same actuarial analysis of the SPRINT data for other endpoints related to freedom from various forms of disease or disability and found a consistent effect: Intensive BP control was associated with a longer time to onset of morbidity.
SPRINT was sponsored primarily by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Vaduganathan reported that he receives research support from/and or serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa.
SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. AHA 2019, Abstract MDP233.
PHILADELPHIA – in age-dependent fashion, compared with the older target standard BP, according to a novel analysis of data from the landmark SPRINT trial.
SPRINT randomized 9,361 hypertensive patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to intensive control with a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg or to the then-standard target of less than 140 mm Hg. The trial was stopped early for ethical reasons when an interim analysis showed intensive control was associated with a 27% reduction in mortality. But that 27% reduction in mortality risk is a tough concept for many patients to interpret in practical terms, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
So he and his coinvestigators sliced and diced the mountainous SPRINT data in a novel way, using an actuarial statistical analysis.
“These actuarial data from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive blood pressure control, especially when initiated in middle-aged, high-risk adults. Our analysis really reaffirms the original SPRINT trial results [N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16] and helps present them in an alternative format that can potentially be more easily communicated to clinicians, patients, and the public at large,” explained Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The impact of intensive BP control on residual survival was magnified in patients who were younger, since they intrinsically have a longer expected survival and will apply the antihypertensive regimen over a longer period. For example, the actuarial analysis concluded that the mean survival benefit of starting intensive BP lowering, rather than settling for a target systolic BP of less than 140 mm Hg starting at age 50 years, was 3 additional years of life, as compared with 1.1 additional years in 65-year-olds and 0.5 years in patients aged 85 years or older. The same approach can be applied to patients at any individual age from 50 to 95 years at the time of enrollment.
“This is very helpful in conveying messages to individual patients. Often if you tell a patient: ‘Your risk is going to go down by 27%,’ it’s tough for them to recognize what the baseline is and if that actually applied to them. So this may personalize that decision-making conversation,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member commented that this SPRINT analysis might actually underestimate the true survival advantage of intensive BP lowering. He noted that SPRINT, which was halted after an average of 3.3 years, didn’t show a significant benefit for intensive BP lowering in terms of stroke reduction, whereas the ACCORD trial did, but that benefit didn’t occur until after 3 years into the study (Hypertension. 2018 Aug;72[2]:323-30).
Dr. Vaduganathan conceded that’s a limitation of his analysis.
“The assumption we’ve used is that long-term cardiovascular benefits are going to be as seen in the trial, but since SPRINT was stopped early, some benefits may be exaggerated and some may not have been observed yet,” he agreed.
Another audience member observed, “I think a lot of patients will think: ‘Okay, you’re tacking on a year at the end, when I’m going to be 89 and demented.’ The National Institute on Aging is focusing a lot more now on nondisabled life expectancy or healthy life expectancy.’”
Dr. Vaduganathan offered a degree of reassurance on this score. Because of time limitations, he said, he only presented the life expectancy results. But he and his coworkers have performed the same actuarial analysis of the SPRINT data for other endpoints related to freedom from various forms of disease or disability and found a consistent effect: Intensive BP control was associated with a longer time to onset of morbidity.
SPRINT was sponsored primarily by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Vaduganathan reported that he receives research support from/and or serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa.
SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. AHA 2019, Abstract MDP233.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Pharmacist BP telemonitoring cut cardiovascular events, turned profit
PHILADELPHIA – A home blood pressure telemonitoring program featuring pharmacist management of patients with uncontrolled hypertension reduced cardiovascular events by half and was cost saving over the course of 5 years, even though the intervention ended after year 1, Karen L. Margolis, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The return on investment was 126%. That means that for every dollar spent on the intervention, that dollar was recouped by $1.00 plus another $1.26,” explained Dr. Margolis, a general internist who serves as executive director for research at the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn., and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
She presented 5-year follow-up data from the Hyperlink (Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Case Management to Control Hypertension) study, a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 16 primary care clinics. Half of the clinics were randomized to the intervention, which entailed home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist-led case management in collaboration with the primary care team. The other eight clinics provided usual care. The intervention portion of the trial, which lasted for 12 months, included 450 adults with uncontrolled hypertension as defined by repeated on-treatment blood pressure readings of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Participants’ baseline mean blood pressure was 148/85 mm Hg while on an average of one and a half antihypertensive drug classes. On average, pharmacists ended up adding one additional drug from a different antihypertensive drug class to achieve improved blood pressure control.
The details of the intervention and the short-term blood pressure results have previously been reported (JAMA. 2013 Jul 3;310[1]:46-56). Briefly, 6 months into the study, patients in the intervention arm averaged 11/6 mm Hg lower blood pressure than did the usual care controls. At 12 months – when the intervention ended – the between-group difference was similar at 10/5 mm Hg. At 18 months, the difference, while attenuated, remained significant at 7/3 mm Hg in favor of the intervention group. However, at 54 months, the intervention group’s advantage – a 3–mm Hg lower SBP and a 1–mm Hg lower DBP than in controls – was no longer significant.
The exciting new findings Dr. Margolis presented at the AHA scientific sessions focused on 5-year outcomes. Since HealthPartners is an integrated health care system, follow-up was essentially complete.
“None of the other telemetry studies I’m aware of have published anything on cardiovascular events. And we were somewhat surprised when we looked at our data to see fairly substantial differences in our primary outcome,” she noted.
That outcome was a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death occurring over 5 years. The rate was 4.4% in the intervention group and nearly double at 8.6% in controls. That translated to a 51% relative risk reduction. The biggest difference was in stroke: 4 cases in the intervention arm, 12 in usual care controls.
The 5-year coronary revascularization rate was 5.3% in the intervention arm and 10.4% in controls, for a 52% relative risk reduction.
A major caveat regarding the Hyperlink trial was that, even at 450 patients and 5 years of follow-up, the study was underpowered to show significant differences in event rates, with P =.09 for the primary endpoint.
That being said, the financial results were striking. The intervention cost $1,511 per patient in 2017 U.S. dollars. The cost of treatment for major adverse cardiovascular events totaled $758,000 in the intervention group and $1,538,000 in usual care controls. That works out to $3,420 less per patient in the intervention arm. Offset by the cost of the intervention, that spells a net savings of $1,908 per patient achieved by implementing the year-long intervention. It’s a rare instance in health care of an intervention that actually makes money.
These results were unusual enough that Dr. Margolis and her coinvestigators decided to feed their wealth of SBP readings into a microsimulation model, which they ran 1,000 times. The model predicted – in light of the fact that patients in the intervention group were on average 2 years older than the controls were – that the expected reduction in the primary endpoint was 12% rather than the observed 51% relative risk reduction.
How to explain the discrepancy? The Hyperlink results could have been due to chance. Or it could be, Dr. Margolis surmised, that the pharmacists helped accomplish improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia, smoking, or sedentary behavior. That’s unknown, since the investigators focused on changes in blood pressure only. Future studies of home telemonitoring and pharmacist case management of uncontrolled hypertension should be powered to detect significant differences in cardiovascular events and should track additional risk factors, she concluded.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
SOURCE: Margolis KL. AHA 2019. Abstract MDP232.
PHILADELPHIA – A home blood pressure telemonitoring program featuring pharmacist management of patients with uncontrolled hypertension reduced cardiovascular events by half and was cost saving over the course of 5 years, even though the intervention ended after year 1, Karen L. Margolis, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The return on investment was 126%. That means that for every dollar spent on the intervention, that dollar was recouped by $1.00 plus another $1.26,” explained Dr. Margolis, a general internist who serves as executive director for research at the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn., and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
She presented 5-year follow-up data from the Hyperlink (Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Case Management to Control Hypertension) study, a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 16 primary care clinics. Half of the clinics were randomized to the intervention, which entailed home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist-led case management in collaboration with the primary care team. The other eight clinics provided usual care. The intervention portion of the trial, which lasted for 12 months, included 450 adults with uncontrolled hypertension as defined by repeated on-treatment blood pressure readings of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Participants’ baseline mean blood pressure was 148/85 mm Hg while on an average of one and a half antihypertensive drug classes. On average, pharmacists ended up adding one additional drug from a different antihypertensive drug class to achieve improved blood pressure control.
The details of the intervention and the short-term blood pressure results have previously been reported (JAMA. 2013 Jul 3;310[1]:46-56). Briefly, 6 months into the study, patients in the intervention arm averaged 11/6 mm Hg lower blood pressure than did the usual care controls. At 12 months – when the intervention ended – the between-group difference was similar at 10/5 mm Hg. At 18 months, the difference, while attenuated, remained significant at 7/3 mm Hg in favor of the intervention group. However, at 54 months, the intervention group’s advantage – a 3–mm Hg lower SBP and a 1–mm Hg lower DBP than in controls – was no longer significant.
The exciting new findings Dr. Margolis presented at the AHA scientific sessions focused on 5-year outcomes. Since HealthPartners is an integrated health care system, follow-up was essentially complete.
“None of the other telemetry studies I’m aware of have published anything on cardiovascular events. And we were somewhat surprised when we looked at our data to see fairly substantial differences in our primary outcome,” she noted.
That outcome was a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death occurring over 5 years. The rate was 4.4% in the intervention group and nearly double at 8.6% in controls. That translated to a 51% relative risk reduction. The biggest difference was in stroke: 4 cases in the intervention arm, 12 in usual care controls.
The 5-year coronary revascularization rate was 5.3% in the intervention arm and 10.4% in controls, for a 52% relative risk reduction.
A major caveat regarding the Hyperlink trial was that, even at 450 patients and 5 years of follow-up, the study was underpowered to show significant differences in event rates, with P =.09 for the primary endpoint.
That being said, the financial results were striking. The intervention cost $1,511 per patient in 2017 U.S. dollars. The cost of treatment for major adverse cardiovascular events totaled $758,000 in the intervention group and $1,538,000 in usual care controls. That works out to $3,420 less per patient in the intervention arm. Offset by the cost of the intervention, that spells a net savings of $1,908 per patient achieved by implementing the year-long intervention. It’s a rare instance in health care of an intervention that actually makes money.
These results were unusual enough that Dr. Margolis and her coinvestigators decided to feed their wealth of SBP readings into a microsimulation model, which they ran 1,000 times. The model predicted – in light of the fact that patients in the intervention group were on average 2 years older than the controls were – that the expected reduction in the primary endpoint was 12% rather than the observed 51% relative risk reduction.
How to explain the discrepancy? The Hyperlink results could have been due to chance. Or it could be, Dr. Margolis surmised, that the pharmacists helped accomplish improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia, smoking, or sedentary behavior. That’s unknown, since the investigators focused on changes in blood pressure only. Future studies of home telemonitoring and pharmacist case management of uncontrolled hypertension should be powered to detect significant differences in cardiovascular events and should track additional risk factors, she concluded.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
SOURCE: Margolis KL. AHA 2019. Abstract MDP232.
PHILADELPHIA – A home blood pressure telemonitoring program featuring pharmacist management of patients with uncontrolled hypertension reduced cardiovascular events by half and was cost saving over the course of 5 years, even though the intervention ended after year 1, Karen L. Margolis, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The return on investment was 126%. That means that for every dollar spent on the intervention, that dollar was recouped by $1.00 plus another $1.26,” explained Dr. Margolis, a general internist who serves as executive director for research at the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn., and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
She presented 5-year follow-up data from the Hyperlink (Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Case Management to Control Hypertension) study, a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 16 primary care clinics. Half of the clinics were randomized to the intervention, which entailed home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist-led case management in collaboration with the primary care team. The other eight clinics provided usual care. The intervention portion of the trial, which lasted for 12 months, included 450 adults with uncontrolled hypertension as defined by repeated on-treatment blood pressure readings of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Participants’ baseline mean blood pressure was 148/85 mm Hg while on an average of one and a half antihypertensive drug classes. On average, pharmacists ended up adding one additional drug from a different antihypertensive drug class to achieve improved blood pressure control.
The details of the intervention and the short-term blood pressure results have previously been reported (JAMA. 2013 Jul 3;310[1]:46-56). Briefly, 6 months into the study, patients in the intervention arm averaged 11/6 mm Hg lower blood pressure than did the usual care controls. At 12 months – when the intervention ended – the between-group difference was similar at 10/5 mm Hg. At 18 months, the difference, while attenuated, remained significant at 7/3 mm Hg in favor of the intervention group. However, at 54 months, the intervention group’s advantage – a 3–mm Hg lower SBP and a 1–mm Hg lower DBP than in controls – was no longer significant.
The exciting new findings Dr. Margolis presented at the AHA scientific sessions focused on 5-year outcomes. Since HealthPartners is an integrated health care system, follow-up was essentially complete.
“None of the other telemetry studies I’m aware of have published anything on cardiovascular events. And we were somewhat surprised when we looked at our data to see fairly substantial differences in our primary outcome,” she noted.
That outcome was a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death occurring over 5 years. The rate was 4.4% in the intervention group and nearly double at 8.6% in controls. That translated to a 51% relative risk reduction. The biggest difference was in stroke: 4 cases in the intervention arm, 12 in usual care controls.
The 5-year coronary revascularization rate was 5.3% in the intervention arm and 10.4% in controls, for a 52% relative risk reduction.
A major caveat regarding the Hyperlink trial was that, even at 450 patients and 5 years of follow-up, the study was underpowered to show significant differences in event rates, with P =.09 for the primary endpoint.
That being said, the financial results were striking. The intervention cost $1,511 per patient in 2017 U.S. dollars. The cost of treatment for major adverse cardiovascular events totaled $758,000 in the intervention group and $1,538,000 in usual care controls. That works out to $3,420 less per patient in the intervention arm. Offset by the cost of the intervention, that spells a net savings of $1,908 per patient achieved by implementing the year-long intervention. It’s a rare instance in health care of an intervention that actually makes money.
These results were unusual enough that Dr. Margolis and her coinvestigators decided to feed their wealth of SBP readings into a microsimulation model, which they ran 1,000 times. The model predicted – in light of the fact that patients in the intervention group were on average 2 years older than the controls were – that the expected reduction in the primary endpoint was 12% rather than the observed 51% relative risk reduction.
How to explain the discrepancy? The Hyperlink results could have been due to chance. Or it could be, Dr. Margolis surmised, that the pharmacists helped accomplish improvements in other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia, smoking, or sedentary behavior. That’s unknown, since the investigators focused on changes in blood pressure only. Future studies of home telemonitoring and pharmacist case management of uncontrolled hypertension should be powered to detect significant differences in cardiovascular events and should track additional risk factors, she concluded.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
SOURCE: Margolis KL. AHA 2019. Abstract MDP232.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Research on statin for preeclampsia prevention advances
WASHINGTON – with a large National Institutes of Health–funded trial currently recruiting women with a prior history of the disorder with preterm delivery at less than 34 weeks, Maged Costantine, MD, said at the biennial Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America meeting.
More should be learned about low-dose aspirin, in the meantime, once the outcomes of a global study involving first-trimester initiation are published, said another speaker, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS. Low-dose aspirin currently is recommended for preeclampsia prevention starting between 12 and 28 weeks, optimally before 16 weeks.
The biological plausibility of using pravastatin for preeclampsia prevention stems from the overlapping pathophysiology of preeclampsia with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease – endothelial dysfunction and inflammation are common key mechanisms – as well as common risk factors, including diabetes and obesity, said Dr. Costantine, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, who is chairing the study.
In animal models of preeclampsia, pravastatin has been shown to upregulate placental growth factor, reduce antiangiogenic factors such as soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), and upregulate endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Mice have shown improved vascular reactivity, decreased proteinuria, decreased oxidative stress, and other positive effects, without any detrimental outcomes.
A pilot randomized controlled trial conducted with the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 assigned 10 women to 10 mg daily pravastatin and 10 women to placebo. The drug reduced maternal cholesterol concentrations but there were no differences in birth weight or umbilical cord cholesterol concentrations between the two groups.
Women in the pravastatin group were less likely to develop preeclampsia (none, compared with four in the placebo group), less likely to have an indicated preterm delivery (one, compared with five in the placebo group), and less likely to have their neonates admitted to the neonatal ICU.
There were no differences in side effects, congenital anomalies, or other adverse events. Dr. Costantine, principal investigator of the pilot study, and his colleagues wrote in the paper that the “favorable risk-benefit analysis justifies continued research with a dose escalation” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214[6]:720.e1-17).
The new multicenter randomized controlled trial is randomizing 1,550 women to either 20 mg pravastatin or placebo starting between 12 weeks 0 days and 16 weeks 6 days. The primary outcome is a composite of preeclampsia, maternal death, or fetal loss. Secondary outcomes include a composite of severe maternal morbidity and various measures representing preeclampsia severity and complications, as well as preterm delivery less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks and various fetal/neonatal outcomes.
“In addition, we’ll look at development,” Dr. Costantine said, with offspring assessed at 2 and 5 years of age. The trial is sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
In the meantime, he said, the use of pravastatin to ameliorate early-onset preeclampsia is being tested in a small European proof-of-concept trial that has randomized women with early-onset preeclampsia (between 24 and 31 6/7 weeks) to 40 mg pravastatin or placebo. The primary outcome is reduction of antiangiogenic markers. Results are expected in another year or 2, he said.
The aspirin trial referred to by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman has been looking at the 81-mg dose of aspirin initiated between 6 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks in nulliparous women who had no more than two previous pregnancy losses. The key question of the Aspirin Supplementation for Pregnancy Indicated Risk Reduction in Nulliparas (ASPIRIN) trial – conducted in the NICHD Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health – is whether low-dose aspirin can reduce the rate of preterm birth. Preeclampsia is a secondary outcome (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02409680).
“It may eventually be that the use of baby aspirin is further expanded to reduce the risk of preterm birth,” she said.
Overall, “we need more data on first-trimester use [of low-dose aspirin] and long-term outcomes,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. And with respect to preeclampsia prevention specifically, more research is needed looking at risk reduction levels within specific groups of patients.
Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has called for low-dose aspirin at 81 mg/day in women who have one or more high-risk factors for preeclampsia (including type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus), and consideration of such treatment in patients with several moderate-risk factors. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation varies slightly in that it advises treatment in patients with more than one (versus several) moderate-level risk factors (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132[1]:e44-52).
Moderate-level risk factors include nulliparity, obesity, family history of preeclampsia, a baseline demographic risk (African-American or low socioeconomic status), and prior poor history (intrauterine growth restriction/small-for-gestational-age, previous poor outcome). “This is just about everyone I see,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said.
Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said she’d “love to see more data on higher doses” of low-dose aspirin – data that compares 81 mg/day with 150 mg/day, for instance.
A study published in 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine randomized 1,776 women at high risk for preeclampsia to 150 mg/day or placebo and found a significant reduction in preterm preeclampsia (4.3% vs. 1.6%) in the aspirin group. Women in this European trial were deemed to be at high risk, however, based on a first-trimester screening algorithm that incorporated serum markers (maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and placental growth factor) and uterine artery Doppler measures (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:613-22).
“So it was a very interesting study, very provocative, but it’s hard to know how it would translate to the U.S. population [given that such screening practices] are not the way most of us are practicing here,” said Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, codirector of the Preterm Birth Prevention Center at Columbia University, New York, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university.
The USPSTF based its recommendations on a systematic review that pooled data from 15 high-quality randomized controlled trials, including 13 that reported preeclampsia incidence among women at highest risk of disease. They found a 24% reduction in preeclampsia, but the actual risk reduction depends on the baseline population risk and may be closer to 10%, she said.
In a presentation on gaps in knowledge, Leslie Myatt, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, emphasized that preeclampsia is a syndrome with a heterogeneity of presentation and pathophysiology. “We don’t completely understand the pathophysiology,” he said.
Research needs to be “directed at the existence of multiple pathways [and subtypes],” he said, such that future therapies can be targeted and personalized.
Dr. Costantine did not report any disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported a Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine/AMAG Pharmaceuticals unrestricted grant and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funding. Dr. Myatt reported that he has no financial or other ties that pose a conflict of interest.
WASHINGTON – with a large National Institutes of Health–funded trial currently recruiting women with a prior history of the disorder with preterm delivery at less than 34 weeks, Maged Costantine, MD, said at the biennial Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America meeting.
More should be learned about low-dose aspirin, in the meantime, once the outcomes of a global study involving first-trimester initiation are published, said another speaker, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS. Low-dose aspirin currently is recommended for preeclampsia prevention starting between 12 and 28 weeks, optimally before 16 weeks.
The biological plausibility of using pravastatin for preeclampsia prevention stems from the overlapping pathophysiology of preeclampsia with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease – endothelial dysfunction and inflammation are common key mechanisms – as well as common risk factors, including diabetes and obesity, said Dr. Costantine, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, who is chairing the study.
In animal models of preeclampsia, pravastatin has been shown to upregulate placental growth factor, reduce antiangiogenic factors such as soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), and upregulate endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Mice have shown improved vascular reactivity, decreased proteinuria, decreased oxidative stress, and other positive effects, without any detrimental outcomes.
A pilot randomized controlled trial conducted with the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 assigned 10 women to 10 mg daily pravastatin and 10 women to placebo. The drug reduced maternal cholesterol concentrations but there were no differences in birth weight or umbilical cord cholesterol concentrations between the two groups.
Women in the pravastatin group were less likely to develop preeclampsia (none, compared with four in the placebo group), less likely to have an indicated preterm delivery (one, compared with five in the placebo group), and less likely to have their neonates admitted to the neonatal ICU.
There were no differences in side effects, congenital anomalies, or other adverse events. Dr. Costantine, principal investigator of the pilot study, and his colleagues wrote in the paper that the “favorable risk-benefit analysis justifies continued research with a dose escalation” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214[6]:720.e1-17).
The new multicenter randomized controlled trial is randomizing 1,550 women to either 20 mg pravastatin or placebo starting between 12 weeks 0 days and 16 weeks 6 days. The primary outcome is a composite of preeclampsia, maternal death, or fetal loss. Secondary outcomes include a composite of severe maternal morbidity and various measures representing preeclampsia severity and complications, as well as preterm delivery less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks and various fetal/neonatal outcomes.
“In addition, we’ll look at development,” Dr. Costantine said, with offspring assessed at 2 and 5 years of age. The trial is sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
In the meantime, he said, the use of pravastatin to ameliorate early-onset preeclampsia is being tested in a small European proof-of-concept trial that has randomized women with early-onset preeclampsia (between 24 and 31 6/7 weeks) to 40 mg pravastatin or placebo. The primary outcome is reduction of antiangiogenic markers. Results are expected in another year or 2, he said.
The aspirin trial referred to by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman has been looking at the 81-mg dose of aspirin initiated between 6 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks in nulliparous women who had no more than two previous pregnancy losses. The key question of the Aspirin Supplementation for Pregnancy Indicated Risk Reduction in Nulliparas (ASPIRIN) trial – conducted in the NICHD Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health – is whether low-dose aspirin can reduce the rate of preterm birth. Preeclampsia is a secondary outcome (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02409680).
“It may eventually be that the use of baby aspirin is further expanded to reduce the risk of preterm birth,” she said.
Overall, “we need more data on first-trimester use [of low-dose aspirin] and long-term outcomes,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. And with respect to preeclampsia prevention specifically, more research is needed looking at risk reduction levels within specific groups of patients.
Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has called for low-dose aspirin at 81 mg/day in women who have one or more high-risk factors for preeclampsia (including type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus), and consideration of such treatment in patients with several moderate-risk factors. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation varies slightly in that it advises treatment in patients with more than one (versus several) moderate-level risk factors (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132[1]:e44-52).
Moderate-level risk factors include nulliparity, obesity, family history of preeclampsia, a baseline demographic risk (African-American or low socioeconomic status), and prior poor history (intrauterine growth restriction/small-for-gestational-age, previous poor outcome). “This is just about everyone I see,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said.
Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said she’d “love to see more data on higher doses” of low-dose aspirin – data that compares 81 mg/day with 150 mg/day, for instance.
A study published in 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine randomized 1,776 women at high risk for preeclampsia to 150 mg/day or placebo and found a significant reduction in preterm preeclampsia (4.3% vs. 1.6%) in the aspirin group. Women in this European trial were deemed to be at high risk, however, based on a first-trimester screening algorithm that incorporated serum markers (maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and placental growth factor) and uterine artery Doppler measures (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:613-22).
“So it was a very interesting study, very provocative, but it’s hard to know how it would translate to the U.S. population [given that such screening practices] are not the way most of us are practicing here,” said Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, codirector of the Preterm Birth Prevention Center at Columbia University, New York, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university.
The USPSTF based its recommendations on a systematic review that pooled data from 15 high-quality randomized controlled trials, including 13 that reported preeclampsia incidence among women at highest risk of disease. They found a 24% reduction in preeclampsia, but the actual risk reduction depends on the baseline population risk and may be closer to 10%, she said.
In a presentation on gaps in knowledge, Leslie Myatt, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, emphasized that preeclampsia is a syndrome with a heterogeneity of presentation and pathophysiology. “We don’t completely understand the pathophysiology,” he said.
Research needs to be “directed at the existence of multiple pathways [and subtypes],” he said, such that future therapies can be targeted and personalized.
Dr. Costantine did not report any disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported a Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine/AMAG Pharmaceuticals unrestricted grant and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funding. Dr. Myatt reported that he has no financial or other ties that pose a conflict of interest.
WASHINGTON – with a large National Institutes of Health–funded trial currently recruiting women with a prior history of the disorder with preterm delivery at less than 34 weeks, Maged Costantine, MD, said at the biennial Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America meeting.
More should be learned about low-dose aspirin, in the meantime, once the outcomes of a global study involving first-trimester initiation are published, said another speaker, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MS. Low-dose aspirin currently is recommended for preeclampsia prevention starting between 12 and 28 weeks, optimally before 16 weeks.
The biological plausibility of using pravastatin for preeclampsia prevention stems from the overlapping pathophysiology of preeclampsia with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease – endothelial dysfunction and inflammation are common key mechanisms – as well as common risk factors, including diabetes and obesity, said Dr. Costantine, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, who is chairing the study.
In animal models of preeclampsia, pravastatin has been shown to upregulate placental growth factor, reduce antiangiogenic factors such as soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), and upregulate endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Mice have shown improved vascular reactivity, decreased proteinuria, decreased oxidative stress, and other positive effects, without any detrimental outcomes.
A pilot randomized controlled trial conducted with the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2016 assigned 10 women to 10 mg daily pravastatin and 10 women to placebo. The drug reduced maternal cholesterol concentrations but there were no differences in birth weight or umbilical cord cholesterol concentrations between the two groups.
Women in the pravastatin group were less likely to develop preeclampsia (none, compared with four in the placebo group), less likely to have an indicated preterm delivery (one, compared with five in the placebo group), and less likely to have their neonates admitted to the neonatal ICU.
There were no differences in side effects, congenital anomalies, or other adverse events. Dr. Costantine, principal investigator of the pilot study, and his colleagues wrote in the paper that the “favorable risk-benefit analysis justifies continued research with a dose escalation” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214[6]:720.e1-17).
The new multicenter randomized controlled trial is randomizing 1,550 women to either 20 mg pravastatin or placebo starting between 12 weeks 0 days and 16 weeks 6 days. The primary outcome is a composite of preeclampsia, maternal death, or fetal loss. Secondary outcomes include a composite of severe maternal morbidity and various measures representing preeclampsia severity and complications, as well as preterm delivery less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks and various fetal/neonatal outcomes.
“In addition, we’ll look at development,” Dr. Costantine said, with offspring assessed at 2 and 5 years of age. The trial is sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
In the meantime, he said, the use of pravastatin to ameliorate early-onset preeclampsia is being tested in a small European proof-of-concept trial that has randomized women with early-onset preeclampsia (between 24 and 31 6/7 weeks) to 40 mg pravastatin or placebo. The primary outcome is reduction of antiangiogenic markers. Results are expected in another year or 2, he said.
The aspirin trial referred to by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman has been looking at the 81-mg dose of aspirin initiated between 6 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks in nulliparous women who had no more than two previous pregnancy losses. The key question of the Aspirin Supplementation for Pregnancy Indicated Risk Reduction in Nulliparas (ASPIRIN) trial – conducted in the NICHD Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health – is whether low-dose aspirin can reduce the rate of preterm birth. Preeclampsia is a secondary outcome (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02409680).
“It may eventually be that the use of baby aspirin is further expanded to reduce the risk of preterm birth,” she said.
Overall, “we need more data on first-trimester use [of low-dose aspirin] and long-term outcomes,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. And with respect to preeclampsia prevention specifically, more research is needed looking at risk reduction levels within specific groups of patients.
Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has called for low-dose aspirin at 81 mg/day in women who have one or more high-risk factors for preeclampsia (including type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus), and consideration of such treatment in patients with several moderate-risk factors. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation varies slightly in that it advises treatment in patients with more than one (versus several) moderate-level risk factors (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132[1]:e44-52).
Moderate-level risk factors include nulliparity, obesity, family history of preeclampsia, a baseline demographic risk (African-American or low socioeconomic status), and prior poor history (intrauterine growth restriction/small-for-gestational-age, previous poor outcome). “This is just about everyone I see,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said.
Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said she’d “love to see more data on higher doses” of low-dose aspirin – data that compares 81 mg/day with 150 mg/day, for instance.
A study published in 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine randomized 1,776 women at high risk for preeclampsia to 150 mg/day or placebo and found a significant reduction in preterm preeclampsia (4.3% vs. 1.6%) in the aspirin group. Women in this European trial were deemed to be at high risk, however, based on a first-trimester screening algorithm that incorporated serum markers (maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and placental growth factor) and uterine artery Doppler measures (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:613-22).
“So it was a very interesting study, very provocative, but it’s hard to know how it would translate to the U.S. population [given that such screening practices] are not the way most of us are practicing here,” said Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, codirector of the Preterm Birth Prevention Center at Columbia University, New York, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university.
The USPSTF based its recommendations on a systematic review that pooled data from 15 high-quality randomized controlled trials, including 13 that reported preeclampsia incidence among women at highest risk of disease. They found a 24% reduction in preeclampsia, but the actual risk reduction depends on the baseline population risk and may be closer to 10%, she said.
In a presentation on gaps in knowledge, Leslie Myatt, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, emphasized that preeclampsia is a syndrome with a heterogeneity of presentation and pathophysiology. “We don’t completely understand the pathophysiology,” he said.
Research needs to be “directed at the existence of multiple pathways [and subtypes],” he said, such that future therapies can be targeted and personalized.
Dr. Costantine did not report any disclosures. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported a Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine/AMAG Pharmaceuticals unrestricted grant and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funding. Dr. Myatt reported that he has no financial or other ties that pose a conflict of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE DPSG-NA 2019
First-time marathon runners rewind the clock on vascular aging
Persons who trained for a marathon showed improvement in age-related aortic stiffness and reduction in blood pressure in a study of 138 first-time completers of the London Marathon.
Compared with pretraining values, the descending aortas of marathon completers were 9% more distensible at the level of the bifurcation of the pulmonary artery and 16% more distensible at the level of the diaphragm (P = .0009 and .002, respectively). There was no change in distensibility of the ascending aorta.
Additionally, central systolic BP dropped by 4 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 3 mm Hg by the time marathon training was completed.
“Training and completion of a first-time marathon result in beneficial reductions in BP and intrinsic aortic stiffening in healthy participants,” concluded Anish Bhuva, MBBS, and coinvestigators. “These changes are equivalent to approximately a 4-year reduction in vascular age.”
The study points to a role for exercise in the reduction of arterial stiffness, a known aging-related contributor to cardiovascular disease for which there currently is no good pharmacologic option, said Julio Chirinos, MD, Phd, in an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.007). The challenge lies in implementing exercise interventions on a large scale in societies where “there remains an immense paradoxical gap” between the known benefits of physical activity and increasingly sedentary populations, he added, calling for increased implementation research.
Using cardiovascular magnetic resonance to assess aortic distensibility, Dr. Bhuva, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, and colleagues assessed aortic BP and aortic stiffness at two points via the noninvasive imaging method. The first assessment was conducted before the study participants began marathon training; the second was obtained between 1 and 3 weeks after marathon completion, after any acute effects of the marathon had abated.
Anthropometric data, peripheral BP, and aerobic capacity (peak VO2) were also assessed at both study points.
Although the study wasn’t designed to track individual training regimens, first-time London Marathon participants were given a 17-week “Beginner’s Training Plan” by event organizers, and asked to follow the plan while participating in the study. The goal of the beginner’s plan was marathon completion, with a schedule of about three runs weekly increasing in duration and intensity over the training period.
Participants had to be first-time marathon participants and running less than 2 hours per week at enrollment. Only those who completed the marathon were included in the data analysis, though baseline characteristics didn’t differ between completers and those who dropped out.
For 2016, the first study year, only participants aged 18-39 years were included, while in 2017, all ages were included in the study. The final age range was 21-69 years, with a mean age of 37; 51% of participants were female. Those with a history of hypertension or taking antihypertensive medication and those who had other significant medical conditions were excluded.
The differential increase in distensibility along the length of the aorta reflects known differences in tissue composition, agreed the authors and Dr. Chirinos, a cardiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. In addition to the magnetic resonance–obtained distensibility measurements, the investigators conducted further calculations to adjust for baseline mean central arterial pressure, since arterial stiffness is a function both of intrinsic tissue characteristics and loading conditions.
In youth, aortic distensibility buffers the effect of pulse pressure on both the left ventricle and the peripheral vascular system. As the aorta and other large arteries stiffen predictably with age, isolated systolic hypertension can result. The stiffening “also favors adverse patterns of pulsatile left ventricular overload,” which can lead to left ventricular remodeling and, eventually, heart failure, noted Dr. Chirinos. Reduced aortic pliancy also allows pulse pressure variation to be transmitted downstream “into the microvasculature of target organs (such as the kidney and brain) that require high blood flow and thus operate at low arteriolar resistance,” he added.
The assessment that marathon training reversed aortic age by a median 3.9 years was derived from the baseline cross-sectional data regarding participants’ age and aortic stiffness. The effect size was largest in those older than 37 years and in those with higher baseline systolic BP, and men saw greater benefit by a median 1.4 years. Those with slower running times also saw greater benefit.
Study participants had small but significant reductions in heart rate, body fat percentage, and weight by the postmarathon assessment, but these differences were not associated with changes in aortic stiffness. Aerobic exercise capacity as measured by peak VO2 didn’t change significantly from pre- to post training, but the fact that participants were semirecumbent during exercise testing (to allow concurrent echocardiography) may have affected results.
The real-world design of this study had the strengths of assessing free-living, healthy individuals who participated in a self-directed training plan. Dr. Bhuva and coauthors acknowledged that marathon training may include changes in diet, sleep, and other potentially confounding lifestyle factors, as well as improvement in lipid and glucose metabolism. Further, noted Dr. Chirinos, there was no control group. Also, results from individuals training for an endurance event may have limited generalizability to the general population.
Still, said Dr. Chirinos, the innovative study design took advantage of a large-scale athletic event to see how a realistic training regimen affected healthy individuals. “Perhaps the contemporary marathon can teach us some lessons about exploiting the confluence of interests of the general public, media, industry, scientific community, and government to accomplish worthy goals at the individual and societal levels.”
The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, and the Barts Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Centre. Exercise testing equipment and technical support were provided by COSMED. Dr. Bhuva reported receiving funding from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Chirinos reported having been a consultant or receiving research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies and Microsoft; he is also an inventor of University of Pennsylvania–held patents for cardiovascular pharmaceutical agents.
SOURCE: Bhuva A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan;75(1):60-71.
Persons who trained for a marathon showed improvement in age-related aortic stiffness and reduction in blood pressure in a study of 138 first-time completers of the London Marathon.
Compared with pretraining values, the descending aortas of marathon completers were 9% more distensible at the level of the bifurcation of the pulmonary artery and 16% more distensible at the level of the diaphragm (P = .0009 and .002, respectively). There was no change in distensibility of the ascending aorta.
Additionally, central systolic BP dropped by 4 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 3 mm Hg by the time marathon training was completed.
“Training and completion of a first-time marathon result in beneficial reductions in BP and intrinsic aortic stiffening in healthy participants,” concluded Anish Bhuva, MBBS, and coinvestigators. “These changes are equivalent to approximately a 4-year reduction in vascular age.”
The study points to a role for exercise in the reduction of arterial stiffness, a known aging-related contributor to cardiovascular disease for which there currently is no good pharmacologic option, said Julio Chirinos, MD, Phd, in an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.007). The challenge lies in implementing exercise interventions on a large scale in societies where “there remains an immense paradoxical gap” between the known benefits of physical activity and increasingly sedentary populations, he added, calling for increased implementation research.
Using cardiovascular magnetic resonance to assess aortic distensibility, Dr. Bhuva, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, and colleagues assessed aortic BP and aortic stiffness at two points via the noninvasive imaging method. The first assessment was conducted before the study participants began marathon training; the second was obtained between 1 and 3 weeks after marathon completion, after any acute effects of the marathon had abated.
Anthropometric data, peripheral BP, and aerobic capacity (peak VO2) were also assessed at both study points.
Although the study wasn’t designed to track individual training regimens, first-time London Marathon participants were given a 17-week “Beginner’s Training Plan” by event organizers, and asked to follow the plan while participating in the study. The goal of the beginner’s plan was marathon completion, with a schedule of about three runs weekly increasing in duration and intensity over the training period.
Participants had to be first-time marathon participants and running less than 2 hours per week at enrollment. Only those who completed the marathon were included in the data analysis, though baseline characteristics didn’t differ between completers and those who dropped out.
For 2016, the first study year, only participants aged 18-39 years were included, while in 2017, all ages were included in the study. The final age range was 21-69 years, with a mean age of 37; 51% of participants were female. Those with a history of hypertension or taking antihypertensive medication and those who had other significant medical conditions were excluded.
The differential increase in distensibility along the length of the aorta reflects known differences in tissue composition, agreed the authors and Dr. Chirinos, a cardiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. In addition to the magnetic resonance–obtained distensibility measurements, the investigators conducted further calculations to adjust for baseline mean central arterial pressure, since arterial stiffness is a function both of intrinsic tissue characteristics and loading conditions.
In youth, aortic distensibility buffers the effect of pulse pressure on both the left ventricle and the peripheral vascular system. As the aorta and other large arteries stiffen predictably with age, isolated systolic hypertension can result. The stiffening “also favors adverse patterns of pulsatile left ventricular overload,” which can lead to left ventricular remodeling and, eventually, heart failure, noted Dr. Chirinos. Reduced aortic pliancy also allows pulse pressure variation to be transmitted downstream “into the microvasculature of target organs (such as the kidney and brain) that require high blood flow and thus operate at low arteriolar resistance,” he added.
The assessment that marathon training reversed aortic age by a median 3.9 years was derived from the baseline cross-sectional data regarding participants’ age and aortic stiffness. The effect size was largest in those older than 37 years and in those with higher baseline systolic BP, and men saw greater benefit by a median 1.4 years. Those with slower running times also saw greater benefit.
Study participants had small but significant reductions in heart rate, body fat percentage, and weight by the postmarathon assessment, but these differences were not associated with changes in aortic stiffness. Aerobic exercise capacity as measured by peak VO2 didn’t change significantly from pre- to post training, but the fact that participants were semirecumbent during exercise testing (to allow concurrent echocardiography) may have affected results.
The real-world design of this study had the strengths of assessing free-living, healthy individuals who participated in a self-directed training plan. Dr. Bhuva and coauthors acknowledged that marathon training may include changes in diet, sleep, and other potentially confounding lifestyle factors, as well as improvement in lipid and glucose metabolism. Further, noted Dr. Chirinos, there was no control group. Also, results from individuals training for an endurance event may have limited generalizability to the general population.
Still, said Dr. Chirinos, the innovative study design took advantage of a large-scale athletic event to see how a realistic training regimen affected healthy individuals. “Perhaps the contemporary marathon can teach us some lessons about exploiting the confluence of interests of the general public, media, industry, scientific community, and government to accomplish worthy goals at the individual and societal levels.”
The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, and the Barts Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Centre. Exercise testing equipment and technical support were provided by COSMED. Dr. Bhuva reported receiving funding from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Chirinos reported having been a consultant or receiving research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies and Microsoft; he is also an inventor of University of Pennsylvania–held patents for cardiovascular pharmaceutical agents.
SOURCE: Bhuva A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan;75(1):60-71.
Persons who trained for a marathon showed improvement in age-related aortic stiffness and reduction in blood pressure in a study of 138 first-time completers of the London Marathon.
Compared with pretraining values, the descending aortas of marathon completers were 9% more distensible at the level of the bifurcation of the pulmonary artery and 16% more distensible at the level of the diaphragm (P = .0009 and .002, respectively). There was no change in distensibility of the ascending aorta.
Additionally, central systolic BP dropped by 4 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 3 mm Hg by the time marathon training was completed.
“Training and completion of a first-time marathon result in beneficial reductions in BP and intrinsic aortic stiffening in healthy participants,” concluded Anish Bhuva, MBBS, and coinvestigators. “These changes are equivalent to approximately a 4-year reduction in vascular age.”
The study points to a role for exercise in the reduction of arterial stiffness, a known aging-related contributor to cardiovascular disease for which there currently is no good pharmacologic option, said Julio Chirinos, MD, Phd, in an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.007). The challenge lies in implementing exercise interventions on a large scale in societies where “there remains an immense paradoxical gap” between the known benefits of physical activity and increasingly sedentary populations, he added, calling for increased implementation research.
Using cardiovascular magnetic resonance to assess aortic distensibility, Dr. Bhuva, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, and colleagues assessed aortic BP and aortic stiffness at two points via the noninvasive imaging method. The first assessment was conducted before the study participants began marathon training; the second was obtained between 1 and 3 weeks after marathon completion, after any acute effects of the marathon had abated.
Anthropometric data, peripheral BP, and aerobic capacity (peak VO2) were also assessed at both study points.
Although the study wasn’t designed to track individual training regimens, first-time London Marathon participants were given a 17-week “Beginner’s Training Plan” by event organizers, and asked to follow the plan while participating in the study. The goal of the beginner’s plan was marathon completion, with a schedule of about three runs weekly increasing in duration and intensity over the training period.
Participants had to be first-time marathon participants and running less than 2 hours per week at enrollment. Only those who completed the marathon were included in the data analysis, though baseline characteristics didn’t differ between completers and those who dropped out.
For 2016, the first study year, only participants aged 18-39 years were included, while in 2017, all ages were included in the study. The final age range was 21-69 years, with a mean age of 37; 51% of participants were female. Those with a history of hypertension or taking antihypertensive medication and those who had other significant medical conditions were excluded.
The differential increase in distensibility along the length of the aorta reflects known differences in tissue composition, agreed the authors and Dr. Chirinos, a cardiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. In addition to the magnetic resonance–obtained distensibility measurements, the investigators conducted further calculations to adjust for baseline mean central arterial pressure, since arterial stiffness is a function both of intrinsic tissue characteristics and loading conditions.
In youth, aortic distensibility buffers the effect of pulse pressure on both the left ventricle and the peripheral vascular system. As the aorta and other large arteries stiffen predictably with age, isolated systolic hypertension can result. The stiffening “also favors adverse patterns of pulsatile left ventricular overload,” which can lead to left ventricular remodeling and, eventually, heart failure, noted Dr. Chirinos. Reduced aortic pliancy also allows pulse pressure variation to be transmitted downstream “into the microvasculature of target organs (such as the kidney and brain) that require high blood flow and thus operate at low arteriolar resistance,” he added.
The assessment that marathon training reversed aortic age by a median 3.9 years was derived from the baseline cross-sectional data regarding participants’ age and aortic stiffness. The effect size was largest in those older than 37 years and in those with higher baseline systolic BP, and men saw greater benefit by a median 1.4 years. Those with slower running times also saw greater benefit.
Study participants had small but significant reductions in heart rate, body fat percentage, and weight by the postmarathon assessment, but these differences were not associated with changes in aortic stiffness. Aerobic exercise capacity as measured by peak VO2 didn’t change significantly from pre- to post training, but the fact that participants were semirecumbent during exercise testing (to allow concurrent echocardiography) may have affected results.
The real-world design of this study had the strengths of assessing free-living, healthy individuals who participated in a self-directed training plan. Dr. Bhuva and coauthors acknowledged that marathon training may include changes in diet, sleep, and other potentially confounding lifestyle factors, as well as improvement in lipid and glucose metabolism. Further, noted Dr. Chirinos, there was no control group. Also, results from individuals training for an endurance event may have limited generalizability to the general population.
Still, said Dr. Chirinos, the innovative study design took advantage of a large-scale athletic event to see how a realistic training regimen affected healthy individuals. “Perhaps the contemporary marathon can teach us some lessons about exploiting the confluence of interests of the general public, media, industry, scientific community, and government to accomplish worthy goals at the individual and societal levels.”
The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, and the Barts Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Centre. Exercise testing equipment and technical support were provided by COSMED. Dr. Bhuva reported receiving funding from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Chirinos reported having been a consultant or receiving research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies and Microsoft; he is also an inventor of University of Pennsylvania–held patents for cardiovascular pharmaceutical agents.
SOURCE: Bhuva A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan;75(1):60-71.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
New hypertension performance measures boost 130/80 mm Hg target
PHILADELPHIA – The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology took a big step toward facilitating widespread U.S. application of the hypertension management guideline that the societies issued in 2017 by releasing a set of performance and quality measures for adults with high blood pressure based on the 2017 guideline.
This guideline notably set a treatment target for patients diagnosed with hypertension of less than 130/80 mg/dL, and also lowered the threshold for diagnosing stage 1 hypertension to a blood pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg, adding in a stroke about 31 million adults with hypertension to the U.S. total.
Having performance and quality measures based on the guideline is “critical, because how else would you know whether you’re having an effect on accurately diagnosing and properly controlling hypertension?” said Donald E. Casey Jr., MD, chair of the performance measures writing committee. The next step is field testing of the measures “to show they are reliable and effective,” as well as other steps to encourage widespread U.S. uptake of the performance and quality measures and the specifics of the 2017 guideline, Dr. Casey said during a presentation of the revised measures at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He especially highlighted the important role of Target: BP, an education, recognition, and quality improvement program run by the AHA and American Medical Association, as a tool that medical practices, health systems, and even payers and employers can use to begin to apply the new performance and quality measures (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 26;74[21]:2661-706) and better align with the recommendations of the 2017 high blood pressure guideline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-248).
“We’re trying now to promote Target: BP; it’s something you can take off the shelf and get going if it’s embedded in a real-life delivery model. I think Target: BP is the secret sauce. It will be the way we’ll convince people to adopt this,” said Dr. Casey, principal and founder of IPO 4 Health, a Chicago-based health care consulting firm.
He also advised practices and health systems not to feel compelled to introduce all of the specific performance and quality measures at once. “We don’t believe everyone has the resources to do all of it at once; the point is to move toward this system of care. We understand that people don’t have the resources to get it all done” immediately, Dr. Casey said in an interview.
A report during another session at the meeting documented the potential impact that Target: BP can have on blood pressure control within a health system. The Trinity Health of New England medical group based in Springfield, Mass., a system with about 140,000 patients – including 20,000 adults diagnosed with hypertension – and served by 230 health care providers in 13 offices in western Massachusetts, began using Target: BP’s MAP improvement program in its practices in November 2018. (MAP stands for measure accurately, act rapidly, and partner with patients.) Just before the MAP program began, 72% of patients diagnosed with hypertension in the medical group were at their goal blood pressure. Less than a year later, in September 2019, the hypertension control rate had jumped to 84%, a 12 percentage point improvement in control in practices that already had been doing a relatively good job, said Daniel W. Weiswasser, MD, director of quality and clinical informatics at Trinity Health of New England. Based on this success, Trinity Health plans to next involve the remaining regions of Trinity Health of New England in Target: BP, followed by the other regions of Trinity’s national organization, which operates in 21 states with nearly 4,000 staff physicians and about half a million patients diagnosed with hypertension, Dr. Weiswasser said.
“If clinicians do the three steps of the MAP then we will see substantial drops in blood pressures. It will occur,” declared Brent M. Egan, MD, vice president for cardiovascular disease prevention of the AMA in Greenville, S.C.
The new report includes six performance measures based on the strongest guideline recommendations and designed to document adherence levels for the purposes of public reporting and pay-for-performance programs. It also includes 16 quality measures designed for local quality review purposes, with 6 process quality measures and 10 structural quality measures. The report spells out that the authors designed the performance measures for use by major national organizations such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), while the quality measures are designed to support quality improvement efforts in any care-delivery setting.
The authors said that the writing committee is sensitive to the fact that the 2019 performance measures for controlling high blood pressure developed by the NCQA for the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set and currently in use in 2019 by CMS also does not incorporate the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines classification scheme. “It is well understood that these measures are already in widespread use, especially for quality-related payment programs promulgated by CMS, such as the Medicare Advantage ‘Stars’ ratings, the Medicare Shared Savings Program, and the Physician Quality Payment Program, as well as many other programs promoted by commercial health insurers. In particular, the widespread use of the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines classification scheme will also help to guide decision making about when to prescribe antihypertensive medications in accordance with its current recommendations for the ACC/AHA “stages” of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension and elevated blood pressure,” they added.
The report also says that “the writing committee was sensitive to the fact that there is currently not complete consensus among other guidelines from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians, and also the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. Nonetheless, despite this ongoing debate, the writing committee felt strongly that it is now time to move the U.S. health care system ahead to reflect these differing points of view and expects that widespread use of this new measure set will help to achieve this goal.” The new report revises hypertension performance measures developed by the ACC and AHA in 2011 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 12;58[3]: 316-36).
In short, the performance and quality measures give all the diverse components of the U.S. health care delivery system a road map for implementing the 2017 High Blood Pressure Guideline in a format that depends on those components electing to adopt and adhere to the 2017 guideline. (Although one of the new performance measures, 1a, harmonizes with an existing and widely applied performance measure.)
“Who is the audience for this, and how will they respond? These performance measures need to be appropriated” by health systems and by performance-assessment groups. “I hope the NCQA will adopt it,” said William C. Cushman, MD, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, and chief of preventive medicine at the Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “There are some negatives to performance measures, but on balance they have done good things and led to better care.” Dr. Cushman also approved of several specific performance and quality measures included in the report. “Most of what they emphasized is good,” particularly the importance of accurate pressure measurement, he said in an interview.
“Process drives outcomes” in hypertension management, and the new performance and quality measures “have some very good process metrics,” commented Dr. Egan. “I’d encourage health systems to select two or three measures that are key to what they do and make sense in their setting rather than try to implement it all at once,” he advised, echoing what Dr. Casey had suggested. “It’s ideal to do everything, but we know that if you give physicians a long list of performance measures they just get overwhelmed. The nice thing about hypertension is that we know that process drives outcomes. In the past, we’ve had some process metrics that did not drive outcomes. Getting these processes implemented will lead to better patient outcomes and save a ton of money.”
“We have introduced the 2017 guideline recommendations throughout Target: BP, but like any quality improvement program there is a question of how does it spread,” said Gregory Wozniak, PhD, director of outcomes analytics for the AMA in Chicago. “Our goal for Target: BP is to be impacting 20 million patients by 2021.”
Dr. Casey, Dr. Weiswasser, and Dr. Wozniak had no disclosures. Dr. Cushman has received honoraria as a speaker from Arbor and Sanofi-Aventis, and travel and research support from Eli Lilly. Dr. Egan has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Merck and a speaker for Emcure.
SOURCE: Casey DE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 26;74[21]: 2661-706.
PHILADELPHIA – The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology took a big step toward facilitating widespread U.S. application of the hypertension management guideline that the societies issued in 2017 by releasing a set of performance and quality measures for adults with high blood pressure based on the 2017 guideline.
This guideline notably set a treatment target for patients diagnosed with hypertension of less than 130/80 mg/dL, and also lowered the threshold for diagnosing stage 1 hypertension to a blood pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg, adding in a stroke about 31 million adults with hypertension to the U.S. total.
Having performance and quality measures based on the guideline is “critical, because how else would you know whether you’re having an effect on accurately diagnosing and properly controlling hypertension?” said Donald E. Casey Jr., MD, chair of the performance measures writing committee. The next step is field testing of the measures “to show they are reliable and effective,” as well as other steps to encourage widespread U.S. uptake of the performance and quality measures and the specifics of the 2017 guideline, Dr. Casey said during a presentation of the revised measures at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He especially highlighted the important role of Target: BP, an education, recognition, and quality improvement program run by the AHA and American Medical Association, as a tool that medical practices, health systems, and even payers and employers can use to begin to apply the new performance and quality measures (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 26;74[21]:2661-706) and better align with the recommendations of the 2017 high blood pressure guideline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-248).
“We’re trying now to promote Target: BP; it’s something you can take off the shelf and get going if it’s embedded in a real-life delivery model. I think Target: BP is the secret sauce. It will be the way we’ll convince people to adopt this,” said Dr. Casey, principal and founder of IPO 4 Health, a Chicago-based health care consulting firm.
He also advised practices and health systems not to feel compelled to introduce all of the specific performance and quality measures at once. “We don’t believe everyone has the resources to do all of it at once; the point is to move toward this system of care. We understand that people don’t have the resources to get it all done” immediately, Dr. Casey said in an interview.
A report during another session at the meeting documented the potential impact that Target: BP can have on blood pressure control within a health system. The Trinity Health of New England medical group based in Springfield, Mass., a system with about 140,000 patients – including 20,000 adults diagnosed with hypertension – and served by 230 health care providers in 13 offices in western Massachusetts, began using Target: BP’s MAP improvement program in its practices in November 2018. (MAP stands for measure accurately, act rapidly, and partner with patients.) Just before the MAP program began, 72% of patients diagnosed with hypertension in the medical group were at their goal blood pressure. Less than a year later, in September 2019, the hypertension control rate had jumped to 84%, a 12 percentage point improvement in control in practices that already had been doing a relatively good job, said Daniel W. Weiswasser, MD, director of quality and clinical informatics at Trinity Health of New England. Based on this success, Trinity Health plans to next involve the remaining regions of Trinity Health of New England in Target: BP, followed by the other regions of Trinity’s national organization, which operates in 21 states with nearly 4,000 staff physicians and about half a million patients diagnosed with hypertension, Dr. Weiswasser said.
“If clinicians do the three steps of the MAP then we will see substantial drops in blood pressures. It will occur,” declared Brent M. Egan, MD, vice president for cardiovascular disease prevention of the AMA in Greenville, S.C.
The new report includes six performance measures based on the strongest guideline recommendations and designed to document adherence levels for the purposes of public reporting and pay-for-performance programs. It also includes 16 quality measures designed for local quality review purposes, with 6 process quality measures and 10 structural quality measures. The report spells out that the authors designed the performance measures for use by major national organizations such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), while the quality measures are designed to support quality improvement efforts in any care-delivery setting.
The authors said that the writing committee is sensitive to the fact that the 2019 performance measures for controlling high blood pressure developed by the NCQA for the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set and currently in use in 2019 by CMS also does not incorporate the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines classification scheme. “It is well understood that these measures are already in widespread use, especially for quality-related payment programs promulgated by CMS, such as the Medicare Advantage ‘Stars’ ratings, the Medicare Shared Savings Program, and the Physician Quality Payment Program, as well as many other programs promoted by commercial health insurers. In particular, the widespread use of the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines classification scheme will also help to guide decision making about when to prescribe antihypertensive medications in accordance with its current recommendations for the ACC/AHA “stages” of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension and elevated blood pressure,” they added.
The report also says that “the writing committee was sensitive to the fact that there is currently not complete consensus among other guidelines from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians, and also the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. Nonetheless, despite this ongoing debate, the writing committee felt strongly that it is now time to move the U.S. health care system ahead to reflect these differing points of view and expects that widespread use of this new measure set will help to achieve this goal.” The new report revises hypertension performance measures developed by the ACC and AHA in 2011 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 12;58[3]: 316-36).
In short, the performance and quality measures give all the diverse components of the U.S. health care delivery system a road map for implementing the 2017 High Blood Pressure Guideline in a format that depends on those components electing to adopt and adhere to the 2017 guideline. (Although one of the new performance measures, 1a, harmonizes with an existing and widely applied performance measure.)
“Who is the audience for this, and how will they respond? These performance measures need to be appropriated” by health systems and by performance-assessment groups. “I hope the NCQA will adopt it,” said William C. Cushman, MD, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, and chief of preventive medicine at the Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “There are some negatives to performance measures, but on balance they have done good things and led to better care.” Dr. Cushman also approved of several specific performance and quality measures included in the report. “Most of what they emphasized is good,” particularly the importance of accurate pressure measurement, he said in an interview.
“Process drives outcomes” in hypertension management, and the new performance and quality measures “have some very good process metrics,” commented Dr. Egan. “I’d encourage health systems to select two or three measures that are key to what they do and make sense in their setting rather than try to implement it all at once,” he advised, echoing what Dr. Casey had suggested. “It’s ideal to do everything, but we know that if you give physicians a long list of performance measures they just get overwhelmed. The nice thing about hypertension is that we know that process drives outcomes. In the past, we’ve had some process metrics that did not drive outcomes. Getting these processes implemented will lead to better patient outcomes and save a ton of money.”
“We have introduced the 2017 guideline recommendations throughout Target: BP, but like any quality improvement program there is a question of how does it spread,” said Gregory Wozniak, PhD, director of outcomes analytics for the AMA in Chicago. “Our goal for Target: BP is to be impacting 20 million patients by 2021.”
Dr. Casey, Dr. Weiswasser, and Dr. Wozniak had no disclosures. Dr. Cushman has received honoraria as a speaker from Arbor and Sanofi-Aventis, and travel and research support from Eli Lilly. Dr. Egan has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Merck and a speaker for Emcure.
SOURCE: Casey DE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 26;74[21]: 2661-706.
PHILADELPHIA – The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology took a big step toward facilitating widespread U.S. application of the hypertension management guideline that the societies issued in 2017 by releasing a set of performance and quality measures for adults with high blood pressure based on the 2017 guideline.
This guideline notably set a treatment target for patients diagnosed with hypertension of less than 130/80 mg/dL, and also lowered the threshold for diagnosing stage 1 hypertension to a blood pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg, adding in a stroke about 31 million adults with hypertension to the U.S. total.
Having performance and quality measures based on the guideline is “critical, because how else would you know whether you’re having an effect on accurately diagnosing and properly controlling hypertension?” said Donald E. Casey Jr., MD, chair of the performance measures writing committee. The next step is field testing of the measures “to show they are reliable and effective,” as well as other steps to encourage widespread U.S. uptake of the performance and quality measures and the specifics of the 2017 guideline, Dr. Casey said during a presentation of the revised measures at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He especially highlighted the important role of Target: BP, an education, recognition, and quality improvement program run by the AHA and American Medical Association, as a tool that medical practices, health systems, and even payers and employers can use to begin to apply the new performance and quality measures (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 26;74[21]:2661-706) and better align with the recommendations of the 2017 high blood pressure guideline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-248).
“We’re trying now to promote Target: BP; it’s something you can take off the shelf and get going if it’s embedded in a real-life delivery model. I think Target: BP is the secret sauce. It will be the way we’ll convince people to adopt this,” said Dr. Casey, principal and founder of IPO 4 Health, a Chicago-based health care consulting firm.
He also advised practices and health systems not to feel compelled to introduce all of the specific performance and quality measures at once. “We don’t believe everyone has the resources to do all of it at once; the point is to move toward this system of care. We understand that people don’t have the resources to get it all done” immediately, Dr. Casey said in an interview.
A report during another session at the meeting documented the potential impact that Target: BP can have on blood pressure control within a health system. The Trinity Health of New England medical group based in Springfield, Mass., a system with about 140,000 patients – including 20,000 adults diagnosed with hypertension – and served by 230 health care providers in 13 offices in western Massachusetts, began using Target: BP’s MAP improvement program in its practices in November 2018. (MAP stands for measure accurately, act rapidly, and partner with patients.) Just before the MAP program began, 72% of patients diagnosed with hypertension in the medical group were at their goal blood pressure. Less than a year later, in September 2019, the hypertension control rate had jumped to 84%, a 12 percentage point improvement in control in practices that already had been doing a relatively good job, said Daniel W. Weiswasser, MD, director of quality and clinical informatics at Trinity Health of New England. Based on this success, Trinity Health plans to next involve the remaining regions of Trinity Health of New England in Target: BP, followed by the other regions of Trinity’s national organization, which operates in 21 states with nearly 4,000 staff physicians and about half a million patients diagnosed with hypertension, Dr. Weiswasser said.
“If clinicians do the three steps of the MAP then we will see substantial drops in blood pressures. It will occur,” declared Brent M. Egan, MD, vice president for cardiovascular disease prevention of the AMA in Greenville, S.C.
The new report includes six performance measures based on the strongest guideline recommendations and designed to document adherence levels for the purposes of public reporting and pay-for-performance programs. It also includes 16 quality measures designed for local quality review purposes, with 6 process quality measures and 10 structural quality measures. The report spells out that the authors designed the performance measures for use by major national organizations such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), while the quality measures are designed to support quality improvement efforts in any care-delivery setting.
The authors said that the writing committee is sensitive to the fact that the 2019 performance measures for controlling high blood pressure developed by the NCQA for the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set and currently in use in 2019 by CMS also does not incorporate the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines classification scheme. “It is well understood that these measures are already in widespread use, especially for quality-related payment programs promulgated by CMS, such as the Medicare Advantage ‘Stars’ ratings, the Medicare Shared Savings Program, and the Physician Quality Payment Program, as well as many other programs promoted by commercial health insurers. In particular, the widespread use of the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines classification scheme will also help to guide decision making about when to prescribe antihypertensive medications in accordance with its current recommendations for the ACC/AHA “stages” of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension and elevated blood pressure,” they added.
The report also says that “the writing committee was sensitive to the fact that there is currently not complete consensus among other guidelines from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians, and also the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. Nonetheless, despite this ongoing debate, the writing committee felt strongly that it is now time to move the U.S. health care system ahead to reflect these differing points of view and expects that widespread use of this new measure set will help to achieve this goal.” The new report revises hypertension performance measures developed by the ACC and AHA in 2011 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 12;58[3]: 316-36).
In short, the performance and quality measures give all the diverse components of the U.S. health care delivery system a road map for implementing the 2017 High Blood Pressure Guideline in a format that depends on those components electing to adopt and adhere to the 2017 guideline. (Although one of the new performance measures, 1a, harmonizes with an existing and widely applied performance measure.)
“Who is the audience for this, and how will they respond? These performance measures need to be appropriated” by health systems and by performance-assessment groups. “I hope the NCQA will adopt it,” said William C. Cushman, MD, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, and chief of preventive medicine at the Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “There are some negatives to performance measures, but on balance they have done good things and led to better care.” Dr. Cushman also approved of several specific performance and quality measures included in the report. “Most of what they emphasized is good,” particularly the importance of accurate pressure measurement, he said in an interview.
“Process drives outcomes” in hypertension management, and the new performance and quality measures “have some very good process metrics,” commented Dr. Egan. “I’d encourage health systems to select two or three measures that are key to what they do and make sense in their setting rather than try to implement it all at once,” he advised, echoing what Dr. Casey had suggested. “It’s ideal to do everything, but we know that if you give physicians a long list of performance measures they just get overwhelmed. The nice thing about hypertension is that we know that process drives outcomes. In the past, we’ve had some process metrics that did not drive outcomes. Getting these processes implemented will lead to better patient outcomes and save a ton of money.”
“We have introduced the 2017 guideline recommendations throughout Target: BP, but like any quality improvement program there is a question of how does it spread,” said Gregory Wozniak, PhD, director of outcomes analytics for the AMA in Chicago. “Our goal for Target: BP is to be impacting 20 million patients by 2021.”
Dr. Casey, Dr. Weiswasser, and Dr. Wozniak had no disclosures. Dr. Cushman has received honoraria as a speaker from Arbor and Sanofi-Aventis, and travel and research support from Eli Lilly. Dr. Egan has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Merck and a speaker for Emcure.
SOURCE: Casey DE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 26;74[21]: 2661-706.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
SZC passes extension test for hyperkalemia
Treatment with sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) led to lasting improvement of hyperkalemia, according to results from an 11-month open-label extension study of the HARMONIZE randomized clinical trial.
SZC selectively binds potassium ions in the colon, reducing absorption and promoting excretion. In the original study, 248 patients with mild hyperkalemia were randomized to SZC or placebo. Within 48 hours, the drug returned potassium to normal and maintained those levels out to 4 weeks.
In the extension study, 123 patients with measured potassium levels of 3.5-6.2 mmol/L, 48 of whom had previously been assigned to placebo, received a 5- to 10-g dose of SZC once per day for up to 337 days. Median daily dose was 10 g, with a dose range of 2.5-15 g (Am J Nephrol. 2019;50[6]:473-480).
Just under 65% of patients completed the 11 months of the open-label extension study, with 88.3% of those achieving the primary endpoint of mean serum potassium levels of 5.1 mmol/L or lower, according to Simon D. Roger, MD, a nephrologist based in Gosford, Australia, and colleagues.
Most patients (83) were taking renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors at baseline of the extension study; 78.3% continued a stable dose throughout the open-label phase, 8.4% increased the dose, and 3.6% discontinued.
Two-thirds of patients reported adverse events, most commonly gastrointestinal disorders (18.7%). Constipation was the most frequent (5.7%), followed by nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (3.3% each).
Adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of participants included hypertension (12.2%), urinary tract infection (8.9%), and peripheral edema (8.1%). Hypertension severity was either mild (46.7%) or moderate (53.3%), and only one case was believed to be associated with the study medication. Thirteen percent of participants reported a total of 17 SMQ edema events. Eleven of the 16 patients had baseline risk factors for edema, leading the authors to conclude that causality between SZC and edema could not be established.
Serious adverse events occurred in 19.5% of participants, and 4.9% of participants discontinued SZC as a result.
SZC is approved for the treatment of hyperkalemia in the United States and Europe. The study was funded by AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Roger S et al. Am J Nephrol;2019:50(6):473-80.
Treatment with sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) led to lasting improvement of hyperkalemia, according to results from an 11-month open-label extension study of the HARMONIZE randomized clinical trial.
SZC selectively binds potassium ions in the colon, reducing absorption and promoting excretion. In the original study, 248 patients with mild hyperkalemia were randomized to SZC or placebo. Within 48 hours, the drug returned potassium to normal and maintained those levels out to 4 weeks.
In the extension study, 123 patients with measured potassium levels of 3.5-6.2 mmol/L, 48 of whom had previously been assigned to placebo, received a 5- to 10-g dose of SZC once per day for up to 337 days. Median daily dose was 10 g, with a dose range of 2.5-15 g (Am J Nephrol. 2019;50[6]:473-480).
Just under 65% of patients completed the 11 months of the open-label extension study, with 88.3% of those achieving the primary endpoint of mean serum potassium levels of 5.1 mmol/L or lower, according to Simon D. Roger, MD, a nephrologist based in Gosford, Australia, and colleagues.
Most patients (83) were taking renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors at baseline of the extension study; 78.3% continued a stable dose throughout the open-label phase, 8.4% increased the dose, and 3.6% discontinued.
Two-thirds of patients reported adverse events, most commonly gastrointestinal disorders (18.7%). Constipation was the most frequent (5.7%), followed by nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (3.3% each).
Adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of participants included hypertension (12.2%), urinary tract infection (8.9%), and peripheral edema (8.1%). Hypertension severity was either mild (46.7%) or moderate (53.3%), and only one case was believed to be associated with the study medication. Thirteen percent of participants reported a total of 17 SMQ edema events. Eleven of the 16 patients had baseline risk factors for edema, leading the authors to conclude that causality between SZC and edema could not be established.
Serious adverse events occurred in 19.5% of participants, and 4.9% of participants discontinued SZC as a result.
SZC is approved for the treatment of hyperkalemia in the United States and Europe. The study was funded by AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Roger S et al. Am J Nephrol;2019:50(6):473-80.
Treatment with sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) led to lasting improvement of hyperkalemia, according to results from an 11-month open-label extension study of the HARMONIZE randomized clinical trial.
SZC selectively binds potassium ions in the colon, reducing absorption and promoting excretion. In the original study, 248 patients with mild hyperkalemia were randomized to SZC or placebo. Within 48 hours, the drug returned potassium to normal and maintained those levels out to 4 weeks.
In the extension study, 123 patients with measured potassium levels of 3.5-6.2 mmol/L, 48 of whom had previously been assigned to placebo, received a 5- to 10-g dose of SZC once per day for up to 337 days. Median daily dose was 10 g, with a dose range of 2.5-15 g (Am J Nephrol. 2019;50[6]:473-480).
Just under 65% of patients completed the 11 months of the open-label extension study, with 88.3% of those achieving the primary endpoint of mean serum potassium levels of 5.1 mmol/L or lower, according to Simon D. Roger, MD, a nephrologist based in Gosford, Australia, and colleagues.
Most patients (83) were taking renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors at baseline of the extension study; 78.3% continued a stable dose throughout the open-label phase, 8.4% increased the dose, and 3.6% discontinued.
Two-thirds of patients reported adverse events, most commonly gastrointestinal disorders (18.7%). Constipation was the most frequent (5.7%), followed by nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (3.3% each).
Adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of participants included hypertension (12.2%), urinary tract infection (8.9%), and peripheral edema (8.1%). Hypertension severity was either mild (46.7%) or moderate (53.3%), and only one case was believed to be associated with the study medication. Thirteen percent of participants reported a total of 17 SMQ edema events. Eleven of the 16 patients had baseline risk factors for edema, leading the authors to conclude that causality between SZC and edema could not be established.
Serious adverse events occurred in 19.5% of participants, and 4.9% of participants discontinued SZC as a result.
SZC is approved for the treatment of hyperkalemia in the United States and Europe. The study was funded by AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Roger S et al. Am J Nephrol;2019:50(6):473-80.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
ASH releases guidelines on managing cardiopulmonary and kidney disease in SCD
ORLANDO – It is good practice to consult with a pulmonary hypertension (PH) expert before referring a patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) for right-heart catheterization or PH evaluation, according to new American Society of Hematology guidelines for the screening and management of cardiopulmonary and kidney disease in patients with SCD.
That “Good Practice” recommendation is one of several included in the evidence-based guidelines published Dec. 10 in Blood Advances and highlighted during a Special Education Session at the annual ASH meeting.
The guidelines provide 10 main recommendations intended to “support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD,” wrote Robert I. Liem, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and colleagues.
The recommendations, agreed upon by a multidisciplinary guideline panel, relate to screening, diagnosis, and management of PH, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), hypertension, proteinuria and chronic kidney disease, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most are “conditional,” as opposed to “strong,” because of a paucity of direct, high-quality outcomes data, and they are accompanied by the Good Practice Statements, descriptive remarks and caveats based on the available data, as well as suggestions for future research.
At the special ASH session, Ankit A. Desai, MD, highlighted some of the recommendations and discussed considerations for their practical application.
The Good Practice Statement on consulting a specialist before referring a patient for PH relates specifically to Recommendations 2a and 2b on the management of abnormal echocardiography, explained Dr. Desai of Indiana University, Indianapolis.
For asymptomatic children and adults with SCD and an isolated peak tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (TRJV) of at least 2.5-2.9 m/s on echocardiography, the panel recommends against right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2a, conditional), he said.
For children and adults with SCD and a peak TRJV of at least 2.5 m/s who also have a reduced 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and/or elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the panel supports right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2b, conditional).
Dr. Desai noted that the 2.5 m/s threshold was found to be suboptimal when used as the sole criteria for right-heart catheterization. Using that threshold alone is associated with “moderate to large” harms, such as starting inappropriate PH-specific therapies and/or performing unnecessary right-heart catheterization. However, when used in combination with 6MWD, the predictive capacity improved significantly, and the risk for potential harm was low, he explained.
Another Good Practice Statement included in the guidelines, and relevant to these recommendations on managing abnormal echocardiography, addresses the importance of basing decisions about the need for right-heart catheterization on echocardiograms obtained at steady state rather than during acute illness, such as during hospitalization for pain or acute chest syndrome.
This is in part because of technical factors, Dr. Desai said.
“We know that repeating [echocardiography] is something that should be considered in patients because ... results vary – sometimes quite a bit – from study to study,” he said.
As for the cutoff values for 6MWD and NT-proBNP, “a decent amount of literature” suggests that less than 333 m and less than 160 pg/ml, respectively, are good thresholds, he said.
“Importantly, this should all be taken in the context of good clinical judgment ... along with discussion with a PH expert,” he added.
The full guidelines are available, along with additional ASH guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia and prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients, at the ASH publications website.
Of note, the SCD guidelines on cardiopulmonary disease and kidney disease are one of five sets of SCD guidelines that have been in development; these are the first of those to be published. The remaining four sets of guidelines will address pain, cerebrovascular complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. All will be published in Blood Advances, and according to Dr. Liem, the transfusion medicine guidelines have been accepted and should be published in January 2020, followed by those for cerebrovascular complications. Publication of the pain and transplant guidelines are anticipated later in 2020.
Dr. Liem and Dr. Desai reported having no conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – It is good practice to consult with a pulmonary hypertension (PH) expert before referring a patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) for right-heart catheterization or PH evaluation, according to new American Society of Hematology guidelines for the screening and management of cardiopulmonary and kidney disease in patients with SCD.
That “Good Practice” recommendation is one of several included in the evidence-based guidelines published Dec. 10 in Blood Advances and highlighted during a Special Education Session at the annual ASH meeting.
The guidelines provide 10 main recommendations intended to “support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD,” wrote Robert I. Liem, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and colleagues.
The recommendations, agreed upon by a multidisciplinary guideline panel, relate to screening, diagnosis, and management of PH, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), hypertension, proteinuria and chronic kidney disease, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most are “conditional,” as opposed to “strong,” because of a paucity of direct, high-quality outcomes data, and they are accompanied by the Good Practice Statements, descriptive remarks and caveats based on the available data, as well as suggestions for future research.
At the special ASH session, Ankit A. Desai, MD, highlighted some of the recommendations and discussed considerations for their practical application.
The Good Practice Statement on consulting a specialist before referring a patient for PH relates specifically to Recommendations 2a and 2b on the management of abnormal echocardiography, explained Dr. Desai of Indiana University, Indianapolis.
For asymptomatic children and adults with SCD and an isolated peak tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (TRJV) of at least 2.5-2.9 m/s on echocardiography, the panel recommends against right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2a, conditional), he said.
For children and adults with SCD and a peak TRJV of at least 2.5 m/s who also have a reduced 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and/or elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the panel supports right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2b, conditional).
Dr. Desai noted that the 2.5 m/s threshold was found to be suboptimal when used as the sole criteria for right-heart catheterization. Using that threshold alone is associated with “moderate to large” harms, such as starting inappropriate PH-specific therapies and/or performing unnecessary right-heart catheterization. However, when used in combination with 6MWD, the predictive capacity improved significantly, and the risk for potential harm was low, he explained.
Another Good Practice Statement included in the guidelines, and relevant to these recommendations on managing abnormal echocardiography, addresses the importance of basing decisions about the need for right-heart catheterization on echocardiograms obtained at steady state rather than during acute illness, such as during hospitalization for pain or acute chest syndrome.
This is in part because of technical factors, Dr. Desai said.
“We know that repeating [echocardiography] is something that should be considered in patients because ... results vary – sometimes quite a bit – from study to study,” he said.
As for the cutoff values for 6MWD and NT-proBNP, “a decent amount of literature” suggests that less than 333 m and less than 160 pg/ml, respectively, are good thresholds, he said.
“Importantly, this should all be taken in the context of good clinical judgment ... along with discussion with a PH expert,” he added.
The full guidelines are available, along with additional ASH guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia and prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients, at the ASH publications website.
Of note, the SCD guidelines on cardiopulmonary disease and kidney disease are one of five sets of SCD guidelines that have been in development; these are the first of those to be published. The remaining four sets of guidelines will address pain, cerebrovascular complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. All will be published in Blood Advances, and according to Dr. Liem, the transfusion medicine guidelines have been accepted and should be published in January 2020, followed by those for cerebrovascular complications. Publication of the pain and transplant guidelines are anticipated later in 2020.
Dr. Liem and Dr. Desai reported having no conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – It is good practice to consult with a pulmonary hypertension (PH) expert before referring a patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) for right-heart catheterization or PH evaluation, according to new American Society of Hematology guidelines for the screening and management of cardiopulmonary and kidney disease in patients with SCD.
That “Good Practice” recommendation is one of several included in the evidence-based guidelines published Dec. 10 in Blood Advances and highlighted during a Special Education Session at the annual ASH meeting.
The guidelines provide 10 main recommendations intended to “support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD,” wrote Robert I. Liem, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and colleagues.
The recommendations, agreed upon by a multidisciplinary guideline panel, relate to screening, diagnosis, and management of PH, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), hypertension, proteinuria and chronic kidney disease, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most are “conditional,” as opposed to “strong,” because of a paucity of direct, high-quality outcomes data, and they are accompanied by the Good Practice Statements, descriptive remarks and caveats based on the available data, as well as suggestions for future research.
At the special ASH session, Ankit A. Desai, MD, highlighted some of the recommendations and discussed considerations for their practical application.
The Good Practice Statement on consulting a specialist before referring a patient for PH relates specifically to Recommendations 2a and 2b on the management of abnormal echocardiography, explained Dr. Desai of Indiana University, Indianapolis.
For asymptomatic children and adults with SCD and an isolated peak tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (TRJV) of at least 2.5-2.9 m/s on echocardiography, the panel recommends against right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2a, conditional), he said.
For children and adults with SCD and a peak TRJV of at least 2.5 m/s who also have a reduced 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and/or elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the panel supports right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2b, conditional).
Dr. Desai noted that the 2.5 m/s threshold was found to be suboptimal when used as the sole criteria for right-heart catheterization. Using that threshold alone is associated with “moderate to large” harms, such as starting inappropriate PH-specific therapies and/or performing unnecessary right-heart catheterization. However, when used in combination with 6MWD, the predictive capacity improved significantly, and the risk for potential harm was low, he explained.
Another Good Practice Statement included in the guidelines, and relevant to these recommendations on managing abnormal echocardiography, addresses the importance of basing decisions about the need for right-heart catheterization on echocardiograms obtained at steady state rather than during acute illness, such as during hospitalization for pain or acute chest syndrome.
This is in part because of technical factors, Dr. Desai said.
“We know that repeating [echocardiography] is something that should be considered in patients because ... results vary – sometimes quite a bit – from study to study,” he said.
As for the cutoff values for 6MWD and NT-proBNP, “a decent amount of literature” suggests that less than 333 m and less than 160 pg/ml, respectively, are good thresholds, he said.
“Importantly, this should all be taken in the context of good clinical judgment ... along with discussion with a PH expert,” he added.
The full guidelines are available, along with additional ASH guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia and prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients, at the ASH publications website.
Of note, the SCD guidelines on cardiopulmonary disease and kidney disease are one of five sets of SCD guidelines that have been in development; these are the first of those to be published. The remaining four sets of guidelines will address pain, cerebrovascular complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. All will be published in Blood Advances, and according to Dr. Liem, the transfusion medicine guidelines have been accepted and should be published in January 2020, followed by those for cerebrovascular complications. Publication of the pain and transplant guidelines are anticipated later in 2020.
Dr. Liem and Dr. Desai reported having no conflicts of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ASH 2019
Intensive BP control reduced dementia but increased brain atrophy and hurt cognition
SAN DIEGO – Intensive blood pressure control over 4 years reduced the overall risk of all-cause dementia by 17%, compared with standard care, but in subanalyses of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) it was also associated with significant decreases in cognitive function and total brain volume, researchers said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
Whether these between-group differences were clinically meaningful was the topic of some debate, but they were enough to prompt Mary Sano, PhD, to strongly state her reservations.
“The cardiovascular effects of SPRINT were impressive, but I am concerned about minimizing the potentially negative effect on cognition,” said Dr. Sano, professor of psychiatry and director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Do I really want to treat a healthy, nonimpaired patient like this if I have to warn them that their cognition might actually get worse? We just cannot minimize this risk. There is very strong evidence that [intensive treatment of blood pressure] might be a step backward in cognition. Would you lower your own blood pressure at a risk of losing some points on your cognition?”
The subanalyses were conducted as part of the SPRINT Memory and Cognition In Decreased Hypertension (SPRINT MIND) substudy, which looked at cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in 9,361 subjects whose hypertension was managed intensively or by standard care (target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg). The trial was stopped early because of a 25% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular disease endpoint and a 27% reduction in all-cause mortality in the intensive-treatment group.
SPRINT MIND examined the risks of incident probable dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and a composite outcome of both. Intensive control reduced the risk of MCI by 19% and the combined outcome by 15%.
At the conference, SPRINT MIND investigators presented three long-term subanalyses with a median intervention and follow-up time of about 4 years.
Sarah Gaussoin of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., presented unpublished data detailing the effects of intensive control on several dementia subtypes: nonamnestic single domain, nonamnestic multidomain, amnestic single domain, and amnestic multidomain. There were 640 subjects in this analysis.
After a median of 3.3 years of intervention and 5 years of follow-up, there were no differences in the rate of incident probable dementia between the single- and multidomain nonamnestic groups. “We did see a strong 22% decreased risk in single-domain versus multidomain amnestic MCI, however,” she said.
Nicholas Pajewski, PhD, also of Wake Forest University, discussed more detailed cognitive outcomes in SPRINT MIND among 2,900 subjects who had a full battery of cognitive testing at every assessment over 5 years. The outcomes included memory deficit and processing speed.
Dr. Pajewski reported finding no significant difference between the groups in the rates of memory decline in either outcome. But there was a greater rate of decline in processing speed in the intensively treated group, he added. The difference was small but statistically significant.
The difference was largely driven by results of a single cognitive test – the Trail Making Test Part A. “It corresponded to about a 1.25-second increase over 4 years,” in processing speed on this test, Dr. Pajewski said.
There were no between-group differences in any of the other domains explored, including language, executive function, global cognitive function, or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
“Obviously, these results are perplexing,” given the overall positive results of SPRINT MIND, he said. “Intensive blood pressure control is a beneficial thing, and we expected to see an effect on memory, or a blunting of decline, and instead we saw some small decrements going the other way. This led us to speculate about what’s going on.”
The trial relied on a narrow definition of MCI that might have affected the outcomes. There was also a very broad range of ages in the study, ranging from 53 to 86 years. More importantly, he said, the original SPRINT study didn’t collect cognitive data at baseline, so there was no way to know how many subjects already might have had MCI when they entered the trial.
Ilya Nasrallah, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented MRI data on white-matter lesions, hippocampal volume fractional anisotropy in the cingulum, and cerebral blood flow. The median time between scans was 4 years, with a median treatment time of 3.4 years.
The standard-care group showed a significantly greater increase in white-matter lesion volume at the follow-up scan than did the intensive-treatment group (1.45 cm3 vs. 0.92 cm3). But the intensively treated group had significantly more brain atrophy, losing a median of 30.6 cm3, compared with a loss of 26.9 cm3 in the standard-treatment group.
“It was a very small difference amounting to less than 1% of the total brain volume, but it was still statistically significant,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
Loss of gray-matter volume drove about two-thirds of the difference in the intensively treated group. There was a corresponding increase in cerebrospinal fluid volume that was driven by differences in the ventricles and the subarachnoid space.
However, there were no significant differences in right, left, or total hippocampal volume. There also were no differences in cingulate bundle anisotropy or cerebral blood flow.
SPRINT was funded by the National Institutes of Health. None of the investigators reported having financial conflicts of interest.
SAN DIEGO – Intensive blood pressure control over 4 years reduced the overall risk of all-cause dementia by 17%, compared with standard care, but in subanalyses of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) it was also associated with significant decreases in cognitive function and total brain volume, researchers said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
Whether these between-group differences were clinically meaningful was the topic of some debate, but they were enough to prompt Mary Sano, PhD, to strongly state her reservations.
“The cardiovascular effects of SPRINT were impressive, but I am concerned about minimizing the potentially negative effect on cognition,” said Dr. Sano, professor of psychiatry and director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Do I really want to treat a healthy, nonimpaired patient like this if I have to warn them that their cognition might actually get worse? We just cannot minimize this risk. There is very strong evidence that [intensive treatment of blood pressure] might be a step backward in cognition. Would you lower your own blood pressure at a risk of losing some points on your cognition?”
The subanalyses were conducted as part of the SPRINT Memory and Cognition In Decreased Hypertension (SPRINT MIND) substudy, which looked at cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in 9,361 subjects whose hypertension was managed intensively or by standard care (target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg). The trial was stopped early because of a 25% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular disease endpoint and a 27% reduction in all-cause mortality in the intensive-treatment group.
SPRINT MIND examined the risks of incident probable dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and a composite outcome of both. Intensive control reduced the risk of MCI by 19% and the combined outcome by 15%.
At the conference, SPRINT MIND investigators presented three long-term subanalyses with a median intervention and follow-up time of about 4 years.
Sarah Gaussoin of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., presented unpublished data detailing the effects of intensive control on several dementia subtypes: nonamnestic single domain, nonamnestic multidomain, amnestic single domain, and amnestic multidomain. There were 640 subjects in this analysis.
After a median of 3.3 years of intervention and 5 years of follow-up, there were no differences in the rate of incident probable dementia between the single- and multidomain nonamnestic groups. “We did see a strong 22% decreased risk in single-domain versus multidomain amnestic MCI, however,” she said.
Nicholas Pajewski, PhD, also of Wake Forest University, discussed more detailed cognitive outcomes in SPRINT MIND among 2,900 subjects who had a full battery of cognitive testing at every assessment over 5 years. The outcomes included memory deficit and processing speed.
Dr. Pajewski reported finding no significant difference between the groups in the rates of memory decline in either outcome. But there was a greater rate of decline in processing speed in the intensively treated group, he added. The difference was small but statistically significant.
The difference was largely driven by results of a single cognitive test – the Trail Making Test Part A. “It corresponded to about a 1.25-second increase over 4 years,” in processing speed on this test, Dr. Pajewski said.
There were no between-group differences in any of the other domains explored, including language, executive function, global cognitive function, or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
“Obviously, these results are perplexing,” given the overall positive results of SPRINT MIND, he said. “Intensive blood pressure control is a beneficial thing, and we expected to see an effect on memory, or a blunting of decline, and instead we saw some small decrements going the other way. This led us to speculate about what’s going on.”
The trial relied on a narrow definition of MCI that might have affected the outcomes. There was also a very broad range of ages in the study, ranging from 53 to 86 years. More importantly, he said, the original SPRINT study didn’t collect cognitive data at baseline, so there was no way to know how many subjects already might have had MCI when they entered the trial.
Ilya Nasrallah, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented MRI data on white-matter lesions, hippocampal volume fractional anisotropy in the cingulum, and cerebral blood flow. The median time between scans was 4 years, with a median treatment time of 3.4 years.
The standard-care group showed a significantly greater increase in white-matter lesion volume at the follow-up scan than did the intensive-treatment group (1.45 cm3 vs. 0.92 cm3). But the intensively treated group had significantly more brain atrophy, losing a median of 30.6 cm3, compared with a loss of 26.9 cm3 in the standard-treatment group.
“It was a very small difference amounting to less than 1% of the total brain volume, but it was still statistically significant,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
Loss of gray-matter volume drove about two-thirds of the difference in the intensively treated group. There was a corresponding increase in cerebrospinal fluid volume that was driven by differences in the ventricles and the subarachnoid space.
However, there were no significant differences in right, left, or total hippocampal volume. There also were no differences in cingulate bundle anisotropy or cerebral blood flow.
SPRINT was funded by the National Institutes of Health. None of the investigators reported having financial conflicts of interest.
SAN DIEGO – Intensive blood pressure control over 4 years reduced the overall risk of all-cause dementia by 17%, compared with standard care, but in subanalyses of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) it was also associated with significant decreases in cognitive function and total brain volume, researchers said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
Whether these between-group differences were clinically meaningful was the topic of some debate, but they were enough to prompt Mary Sano, PhD, to strongly state her reservations.
“The cardiovascular effects of SPRINT were impressive, but I am concerned about minimizing the potentially negative effect on cognition,” said Dr. Sano, professor of psychiatry and director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Do I really want to treat a healthy, nonimpaired patient like this if I have to warn them that their cognition might actually get worse? We just cannot minimize this risk. There is very strong evidence that [intensive treatment of blood pressure] might be a step backward in cognition. Would you lower your own blood pressure at a risk of losing some points on your cognition?”
The subanalyses were conducted as part of the SPRINT Memory and Cognition In Decreased Hypertension (SPRINT MIND) substudy, which looked at cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in 9,361 subjects whose hypertension was managed intensively or by standard care (target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg). The trial was stopped early because of a 25% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular disease endpoint and a 27% reduction in all-cause mortality in the intensive-treatment group.
SPRINT MIND examined the risks of incident probable dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and a composite outcome of both. Intensive control reduced the risk of MCI by 19% and the combined outcome by 15%.
At the conference, SPRINT MIND investigators presented three long-term subanalyses with a median intervention and follow-up time of about 4 years.
Sarah Gaussoin of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., presented unpublished data detailing the effects of intensive control on several dementia subtypes: nonamnestic single domain, nonamnestic multidomain, amnestic single domain, and amnestic multidomain. There were 640 subjects in this analysis.
After a median of 3.3 years of intervention and 5 years of follow-up, there were no differences in the rate of incident probable dementia between the single- and multidomain nonamnestic groups. “We did see a strong 22% decreased risk in single-domain versus multidomain amnestic MCI, however,” she said.
Nicholas Pajewski, PhD, also of Wake Forest University, discussed more detailed cognitive outcomes in SPRINT MIND among 2,900 subjects who had a full battery of cognitive testing at every assessment over 5 years. The outcomes included memory deficit and processing speed.
Dr. Pajewski reported finding no significant difference between the groups in the rates of memory decline in either outcome. But there was a greater rate of decline in processing speed in the intensively treated group, he added. The difference was small but statistically significant.
The difference was largely driven by results of a single cognitive test – the Trail Making Test Part A. “It corresponded to about a 1.25-second increase over 4 years,” in processing speed on this test, Dr. Pajewski said.
There were no between-group differences in any of the other domains explored, including language, executive function, global cognitive function, or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
“Obviously, these results are perplexing,” given the overall positive results of SPRINT MIND, he said. “Intensive blood pressure control is a beneficial thing, and we expected to see an effect on memory, or a blunting of decline, and instead we saw some small decrements going the other way. This led us to speculate about what’s going on.”
The trial relied on a narrow definition of MCI that might have affected the outcomes. There was also a very broad range of ages in the study, ranging from 53 to 86 years. More importantly, he said, the original SPRINT study didn’t collect cognitive data at baseline, so there was no way to know how many subjects already might have had MCI when they entered the trial.
Ilya Nasrallah, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented MRI data on white-matter lesions, hippocampal volume fractional anisotropy in the cingulum, and cerebral blood flow. The median time between scans was 4 years, with a median treatment time of 3.4 years.
The standard-care group showed a significantly greater increase in white-matter lesion volume at the follow-up scan than did the intensive-treatment group (1.45 cm3 vs. 0.92 cm3). But the intensively treated group had significantly more brain atrophy, losing a median of 30.6 cm3, compared with a loss of 26.9 cm3 in the standard-treatment group.
“It was a very small difference amounting to less than 1% of the total brain volume, but it was still statistically significant,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
Loss of gray-matter volume drove about two-thirds of the difference in the intensively treated group. There was a corresponding increase in cerebrospinal fluid volume that was driven by differences in the ventricles and the subarachnoid space.
However, there were no significant differences in right, left, or total hippocampal volume. There also were no differences in cingulate bundle anisotropy or cerebral blood flow.
SPRINT was funded by the National Institutes of Health. None of the investigators reported having financial conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM CTAD 2019
Data build on cardiovascular disease risk after GDM, HDP
WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.
Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And ”
Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.
An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.
The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).
HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.
Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).
Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”
The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data
The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.
Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.
An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).
The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.
Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.
The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.
Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.
“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”
Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care
Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.
Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.
At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.
A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).
Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.
A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).
“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”
For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.
Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.
WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.
Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And ”
Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.
An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.
The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).
HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.
Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).
Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”
The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data
The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.
Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.
An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).
The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.
Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.
The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.
Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.
“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”
Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care
Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.
Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.
At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.
A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).
Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.
A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).
“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”
For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.
Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.
WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.
Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And ”
Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.
An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.
The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).
HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.
Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).
Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”
The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data
The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.
Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.
An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).
The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.
Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.
The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.
Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.
“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”
Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care
Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.
Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.
At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.
A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).
Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.
A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).
“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”
For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.
Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.
REPORTING FROM THE DPSG-NA 2019
Weaknesses exposed in valsartan recall
ED visits for hypertension in month after the 2018 recall spiked 55%
PHILADELPHIA – The 2018 recall of generic forms of the antihypertensive valsartan exposed weaknesses in the recall systems for generic drugs in both the United States and Canada that caused many patients on the drug to fall through the cracks, according to a study of prescribing patterns in Ontario before and after the recall reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results also have been published online in the journal Circulation (2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044494).
Cynthia Jackevicius, PharmD, of the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., reported that 90% of patients on recalled generic valsartan products switched to another antihypertension drug, but called the 10% for whom the study had no data “concerning.” She also said that ED visits for hypertension (HTN) in the month after the recall spiked 55%, from a rate of 0.11% to 0.17% (P = .02). While small, that increase was statistically significant, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada issued voluntary recalls of generic forms of valsartan in July 2018 following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a suspected carcinogen, being found in the products. Eventually, the recalls expanded to include valsartan products containing the contaminants N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) and N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), as well as losartan and irbesartan products.
The Ontario study evaluated prescribing patterns and health system utilization in four different provincewide health databases and involved 55,461 patients, all of whom were on recalled generic valsartan when Health Canada issued the recall. The study also computed monthly rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for HTN, congestive heart failure, stroke/transit ischemic attack, and MI as primary diagnoses for 18 months before and 6 months after the recall. Rates of utilization for CHF and MI remained relatively flat through the study period, Dr. Jackevicius said, but rates of ED visits for stroke/TIA showed “a very small relative increase: 6% and 8% in ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively.” Respective P values were .020 and .037.
As for the nature of the ED visits after the recall, Dr. Jackevicius said the study did not tease that out. Many visits could have been for uncontrolled HTN or to get expired prescriptions refilled.
“But either way, even if it is just getting a new prescription, this isn’t the best response,” she said. We need to have a better system where patients can more easily or with less burden deal with a recall.”
Session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, echoed Dr. Jackevicius’s concerns about the handling of drug recalls. “Recalls are increasing,” he said. “Is this just the tip of the iceberg on the quality of generics and we’re going to see these floodgates open? Is this going to be chaos or is this more isolated to this class of medication, the ARBs? This is becoming a little concerning.”
Dr. Jackevicius made note of the recalls that followed the original valsartan recall.
“This really opened a lot of questions in terms of the quality of generic products,” she said. Drug manufacturers are putting safeguards into place to detect these potential contaminants, she said, “but a lot more work needs to be done to ensure the supply. All of these recalls and the prominence of this will be increased.”
The response to the recalls also must undergo revision, she said, citing the experiences of the United States and Canada. “There isn’t really a good system or strategy for recalls in either country,” Dr. Jackevicius said, noting that regulatory bodies notify prescribers and physicians, but “they don’t know which patients are on it.”
A better strategy would be to involve pharmacies more in the process. “The pharmacies have the lot numbers, and they will know what patients are on the recalled drug,” she said. “The pharmacists are the ones who are making the changes in the drugs, and giving them the responsibility so patients don’t have to go into the ED is important. If it’s a basic interchange of a drug, the pharmacists can do that to help raise compliance.”
Dr. Jackevicius had no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Jackevicius J. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.
ED visits for hypertension in month after the 2018 recall spiked 55%
ED visits for hypertension in month after the 2018 recall spiked 55%
PHILADELPHIA – The 2018 recall of generic forms of the antihypertensive valsartan exposed weaknesses in the recall systems for generic drugs in both the United States and Canada that caused many patients on the drug to fall through the cracks, according to a study of prescribing patterns in Ontario before and after the recall reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results also have been published online in the journal Circulation (2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044494).
Cynthia Jackevicius, PharmD, of the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., reported that 90% of patients on recalled generic valsartan products switched to another antihypertension drug, but called the 10% for whom the study had no data “concerning.” She also said that ED visits for hypertension (HTN) in the month after the recall spiked 55%, from a rate of 0.11% to 0.17% (P = .02). While small, that increase was statistically significant, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada issued voluntary recalls of generic forms of valsartan in July 2018 following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a suspected carcinogen, being found in the products. Eventually, the recalls expanded to include valsartan products containing the contaminants N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) and N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), as well as losartan and irbesartan products.
The Ontario study evaluated prescribing patterns and health system utilization in four different provincewide health databases and involved 55,461 patients, all of whom were on recalled generic valsartan when Health Canada issued the recall. The study also computed monthly rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for HTN, congestive heart failure, stroke/transit ischemic attack, and MI as primary diagnoses for 18 months before and 6 months after the recall. Rates of utilization for CHF and MI remained relatively flat through the study period, Dr. Jackevicius said, but rates of ED visits for stroke/TIA showed “a very small relative increase: 6% and 8% in ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively.” Respective P values were .020 and .037.
As for the nature of the ED visits after the recall, Dr. Jackevicius said the study did not tease that out. Many visits could have been for uncontrolled HTN or to get expired prescriptions refilled.
“But either way, even if it is just getting a new prescription, this isn’t the best response,” she said. We need to have a better system where patients can more easily or with less burden deal with a recall.”
Session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, echoed Dr. Jackevicius’s concerns about the handling of drug recalls. “Recalls are increasing,” he said. “Is this just the tip of the iceberg on the quality of generics and we’re going to see these floodgates open? Is this going to be chaos or is this more isolated to this class of medication, the ARBs? This is becoming a little concerning.”
Dr. Jackevicius made note of the recalls that followed the original valsartan recall.
“This really opened a lot of questions in terms of the quality of generic products,” she said. Drug manufacturers are putting safeguards into place to detect these potential contaminants, she said, “but a lot more work needs to be done to ensure the supply. All of these recalls and the prominence of this will be increased.”
The response to the recalls also must undergo revision, she said, citing the experiences of the United States and Canada. “There isn’t really a good system or strategy for recalls in either country,” Dr. Jackevicius said, noting that regulatory bodies notify prescribers and physicians, but “they don’t know which patients are on it.”
A better strategy would be to involve pharmacies more in the process. “The pharmacies have the lot numbers, and they will know what patients are on the recalled drug,” she said. “The pharmacists are the ones who are making the changes in the drugs, and giving them the responsibility so patients don’t have to go into the ED is important. If it’s a basic interchange of a drug, the pharmacists can do that to help raise compliance.”
Dr. Jackevicius had no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Jackevicius J. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.
PHILADELPHIA – The 2018 recall of generic forms of the antihypertensive valsartan exposed weaknesses in the recall systems for generic drugs in both the United States and Canada that caused many patients on the drug to fall through the cracks, according to a study of prescribing patterns in Ontario before and after the recall reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results also have been published online in the journal Circulation (2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044494).
Cynthia Jackevicius, PharmD, of the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., reported that 90% of patients on recalled generic valsartan products switched to another antihypertension drug, but called the 10% for whom the study had no data “concerning.” She also said that ED visits for hypertension (HTN) in the month after the recall spiked 55%, from a rate of 0.11% to 0.17% (P = .02). While small, that increase was statistically significant, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada issued voluntary recalls of generic forms of valsartan in July 2018 following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a suspected carcinogen, being found in the products. Eventually, the recalls expanded to include valsartan products containing the contaminants N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) and N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), as well as losartan and irbesartan products.
The Ontario study evaluated prescribing patterns and health system utilization in four different provincewide health databases and involved 55,461 patients, all of whom were on recalled generic valsartan when Health Canada issued the recall. The study also computed monthly rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for HTN, congestive heart failure, stroke/transit ischemic attack, and MI as primary diagnoses for 18 months before and 6 months after the recall. Rates of utilization for CHF and MI remained relatively flat through the study period, Dr. Jackevicius said, but rates of ED visits for stroke/TIA showed “a very small relative increase: 6% and 8% in ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively.” Respective P values were .020 and .037.
As for the nature of the ED visits after the recall, Dr. Jackevicius said the study did not tease that out. Many visits could have been for uncontrolled HTN or to get expired prescriptions refilled.
“But either way, even if it is just getting a new prescription, this isn’t the best response,” she said. We need to have a better system where patients can more easily or with less burden deal with a recall.”
Session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, echoed Dr. Jackevicius’s concerns about the handling of drug recalls. “Recalls are increasing,” he said. “Is this just the tip of the iceberg on the quality of generics and we’re going to see these floodgates open? Is this going to be chaos or is this more isolated to this class of medication, the ARBs? This is becoming a little concerning.”
Dr. Jackevicius made note of the recalls that followed the original valsartan recall.
“This really opened a lot of questions in terms of the quality of generic products,” she said. Drug manufacturers are putting safeguards into place to detect these potential contaminants, she said, “but a lot more work needs to be done to ensure the supply. All of these recalls and the prominence of this will be increased.”
The response to the recalls also must undergo revision, she said, citing the experiences of the United States and Canada. “There isn’t really a good system or strategy for recalls in either country,” Dr. Jackevicius said, noting that regulatory bodies notify prescribers and physicians, but “they don’t know which patients are on it.”
A better strategy would be to involve pharmacies more in the process. “The pharmacies have the lot numbers, and they will know what patients are on the recalled drug,” she said. “The pharmacists are the ones who are making the changes in the drugs, and giving them the responsibility so patients don’t have to go into the ED is important. If it’s a basic interchange of a drug, the pharmacists can do that to help raise compliance.”
Dr. Jackevicius had no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Jackevicius J. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Key clinical point: Neither Canada nor the United States has a good system or strategy for recalling generic drugs.
Major finding: One in 10 patients may have discontinued therapy after the recall.
Study details: Population study of prescribing patterns and health utilization rates of 55,461 patients on valsartan before and after the July 2018 recall.
Disclosures: Dr. Jackevicius has no relevant financial relationships to report.
Source: Jackevicius C. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.