Hypertension

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults who used thiazide diuretics for hypertension were more likely than were those who used nonthiazide agents to develop hyponatremia within 2 years of starting treatment, a new study of more than 180,000 people has found.

Although thiazide diuretics generally are well-tolerated in the routine treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, severe adverse effects are possible, and their frequency has not been examined, according to Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, of Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues.

“Thiazide diuretics are commonly used drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, and hyponatremia is a known potential side effect to thiazide treatment, but the frequency of this adverse event is inconsistently reported across drug labels,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization.

Product labels for thiazide diuretics list hyponatremia as a potential adverse event that can occur rarely (defined as a range from less than 1 in 10,000 to less than 1 in 100 individuals), but the extent of the burden is unclear given the wide range of symptoms of the condition, the researchers write. 

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Andersson and his colleagues reviewed data from population-based registries in Denmark of adults aged 40 years or older with uncomplicated hypertension, no recent prescriptions for antihypertensives, and no previous history of hyponatremia. They emulated two target trials. One trial compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of bendroflumethiazide (BFZ) vs a calcium-channel blocker (CCB). The other emulation compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) plus a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor vs a RAS inhibitor without HCTZ. 

The primary outcome was hyponatremia, defined as blood sodium < 130 mmol/L, within 2 years of starting treatment. 

The 2-year incidence of hyponatremia for the two thiazide diuretics was 3.83% for BFZ and 3.51% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor. The risk difference in the incidence of hyponatremia was 1.35% for BFZ vs CCB and 1.38% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor, the researchers reported. 

The study population included 37,786 new users of BFZ who were compared with 44,963 new users of CCBs as well as 11,943 new users of HCTZ-RAS inhibitors who were compared with 85,784 new users of RAS inhibitors only. 

Overall, older age and a greater number of comorbidities increased the cumulative hyponatremia in new users of thiazide-based hypertensives. The risk differences among individuals aged 80 years or older were 4.80% in the BFZ vs CCB study and 5.52% in the HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor study. Among participants with three or more comorbidities, the risk differences in the two studies were 5.24% and 2.91%, respectively, Dr. Andersson’s group found.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the potential for confounding on the basis of the assumption that filled prescriptions equaled drug use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on new users and a Danish population only, which might limit generalizability, and a lack of data on blood pressure measures.

However, the results suggest a greater risk for hyponatremia with thiazide diuretics than what the drug labels indicate, especially early in treatment, the researchers concluded.

 

Data Reinforce Need for Vigilance in the Clinic

“Our findings highlight the continued need for clinical awareness and monitoring of this adverse drug reaction; particularly during the first months of treatment, in persons who are older or who have comorbidities,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization. “Further mapping of potential subpopulations at risk in terms of specific comorbidities is important to improve the prevention of this adverse event.”

“The thiazide diuretics have been recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension, and it was important to evaluate the potential development of hyponatremia, especially in the older patients given the potentially serious health effects caused by hyponatremia,” said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisconsin. Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study, also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. 

The current study findings were not surprising, Dr. Deep added. “I have seen this occur in my patients, especially in the older female patients,” he said. “The results reinforce my practice of monitoring the electrolytes and renal function in 1-2 weeks after starting a thiazide diuretic, and then at regular intervals.”

In practice, clinicians should be aware of the potential development of hyponatremia and monitor and address the electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Deep said. “While thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are an important component of our treatment options for patients with hypertension and other conditions, we should also ensure that we are cognizant of and address the potential side effects or electrolyte imbalances caused by the medications.” 

The study was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Helsefonden, Dagmar Marshalls Fond, Gangstedfonden, A.P. Møller and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Foundation, Brødrene Hartmanns Fond, and Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Adults who used thiazide diuretics for hypertension were more likely than were those who used nonthiazide agents to develop hyponatremia within 2 years of starting treatment, a new study of more than 180,000 people has found.

Although thiazide diuretics generally are well-tolerated in the routine treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, severe adverse effects are possible, and their frequency has not been examined, according to Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, of Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues.

“Thiazide diuretics are commonly used drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, and hyponatremia is a known potential side effect to thiazide treatment, but the frequency of this adverse event is inconsistently reported across drug labels,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization.

Product labels for thiazide diuretics list hyponatremia as a potential adverse event that can occur rarely (defined as a range from less than 1 in 10,000 to less than 1 in 100 individuals), but the extent of the burden is unclear given the wide range of symptoms of the condition, the researchers write. 

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Andersson and his colleagues reviewed data from population-based registries in Denmark of adults aged 40 years or older with uncomplicated hypertension, no recent prescriptions for antihypertensives, and no previous history of hyponatremia. They emulated two target trials. One trial compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of bendroflumethiazide (BFZ) vs a calcium-channel blocker (CCB). The other emulation compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) plus a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor vs a RAS inhibitor without HCTZ. 

The primary outcome was hyponatremia, defined as blood sodium < 130 mmol/L, within 2 years of starting treatment. 

The 2-year incidence of hyponatremia for the two thiazide diuretics was 3.83% for BFZ and 3.51% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor. The risk difference in the incidence of hyponatremia was 1.35% for BFZ vs CCB and 1.38% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor, the researchers reported. 

The study population included 37,786 new users of BFZ who were compared with 44,963 new users of CCBs as well as 11,943 new users of HCTZ-RAS inhibitors who were compared with 85,784 new users of RAS inhibitors only. 

Overall, older age and a greater number of comorbidities increased the cumulative hyponatremia in new users of thiazide-based hypertensives. The risk differences among individuals aged 80 years or older were 4.80% in the BFZ vs CCB study and 5.52% in the HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor study. Among participants with three or more comorbidities, the risk differences in the two studies were 5.24% and 2.91%, respectively, Dr. Andersson’s group found.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the potential for confounding on the basis of the assumption that filled prescriptions equaled drug use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on new users and a Danish population only, which might limit generalizability, and a lack of data on blood pressure measures.

However, the results suggest a greater risk for hyponatremia with thiazide diuretics than what the drug labels indicate, especially early in treatment, the researchers concluded.

 

Data Reinforce Need for Vigilance in the Clinic

“Our findings highlight the continued need for clinical awareness and monitoring of this adverse drug reaction; particularly during the first months of treatment, in persons who are older or who have comorbidities,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization. “Further mapping of potential subpopulations at risk in terms of specific comorbidities is important to improve the prevention of this adverse event.”

“The thiazide diuretics have been recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension, and it was important to evaluate the potential development of hyponatremia, especially in the older patients given the potentially serious health effects caused by hyponatremia,” said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisconsin. Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study, also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. 

The current study findings were not surprising, Dr. Deep added. “I have seen this occur in my patients, especially in the older female patients,” he said. “The results reinforce my practice of monitoring the electrolytes and renal function in 1-2 weeks after starting a thiazide diuretic, and then at regular intervals.”

In practice, clinicians should be aware of the potential development of hyponatremia and monitor and address the electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Deep said. “While thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are an important component of our treatment options for patients with hypertension and other conditions, we should also ensure that we are cognizant of and address the potential side effects or electrolyte imbalances caused by the medications.” 

The study was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Helsefonden, Dagmar Marshalls Fond, Gangstedfonden, A.P. Møller and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Foundation, Brødrene Hartmanns Fond, and Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Adults who used thiazide diuretics for hypertension were more likely than were those who used nonthiazide agents to develop hyponatremia within 2 years of starting treatment, a new study of more than 180,000 people has found.

Although thiazide diuretics generally are well-tolerated in the routine treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, severe adverse effects are possible, and their frequency has not been examined, according to Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, of Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues.

“Thiazide diuretics are commonly used drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, and hyponatremia is a known potential side effect to thiazide treatment, but the frequency of this adverse event is inconsistently reported across drug labels,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization.

Product labels for thiazide diuretics list hyponatremia as a potential adverse event that can occur rarely (defined as a range from less than 1 in 10,000 to less than 1 in 100 individuals), but the extent of the burden is unclear given the wide range of symptoms of the condition, the researchers write. 

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Andersson and his colleagues reviewed data from population-based registries in Denmark of adults aged 40 years or older with uncomplicated hypertension, no recent prescriptions for antihypertensives, and no previous history of hyponatremia. They emulated two target trials. One trial compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of bendroflumethiazide (BFZ) vs a calcium-channel blocker (CCB). The other emulation compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) plus a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor vs a RAS inhibitor without HCTZ. 

The primary outcome was hyponatremia, defined as blood sodium < 130 mmol/L, within 2 years of starting treatment. 

The 2-year incidence of hyponatremia for the two thiazide diuretics was 3.83% for BFZ and 3.51% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor. The risk difference in the incidence of hyponatremia was 1.35% for BFZ vs CCB and 1.38% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor, the researchers reported. 

The study population included 37,786 new users of BFZ who were compared with 44,963 new users of CCBs as well as 11,943 new users of HCTZ-RAS inhibitors who were compared with 85,784 new users of RAS inhibitors only. 

Overall, older age and a greater number of comorbidities increased the cumulative hyponatremia in new users of thiazide-based hypertensives. The risk differences among individuals aged 80 years or older were 4.80% in the BFZ vs CCB study and 5.52% in the HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor study. Among participants with three or more comorbidities, the risk differences in the two studies were 5.24% and 2.91%, respectively, Dr. Andersson’s group found.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the potential for confounding on the basis of the assumption that filled prescriptions equaled drug use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on new users and a Danish population only, which might limit generalizability, and a lack of data on blood pressure measures.

However, the results suggest a greater risk for hyponatremia with thiazide diuretics than what the drug labels indicate, especially early in treatment, the researchers concluded.

 

Data Reinforce Need for Vigilance in the Clinic

“Our findings highlight the continued need for clinical awareness and monitoring of this adverse drug reaction; particularly during the first months of treatment, in persons who are older or who have comorbidities,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization. “Further mapping of potential subpopulations at risk in terms of specific comorbidities is important to improve the prevention of this adverse event.”

“The thiazide diuretics have been recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension, and it was important to evaluate the potential development of hyponatremia, especially in the older patients given the potentially serious health effects caused by hyponatremia,” said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisconsin. Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study, also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. 

The current study findings were not surprising, Dr. Deep added. “I have seen this occur in my patients, especially in the older female patients,” he said. “The results reinforce my practice of monitoring the electrolytes and renal function in 1-2 weeks after starting a thiazide diuretic, and then at regular intervals.”

In practice, clinicians should be aware of the potential development of hyponatremia and monitor and address the electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Deep said. “While thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are an important component of our treatment options for patients with hypertension and other conditions, we should also ensure that we are cognizant of and address the potential side effects or electrolyte imbalances caused by the medications.” 

The study was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Helsefonden, Dagmar Marshalls Fond, Gangstedfonden, A.P. Møller and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Foundation, Brødrene Hartmanns Fond, and Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long-term data showed negligible differences in mortality among hypertensive adults treated with thiazide-type diuretics, calcium channel blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in a review of nearly 33,000 individuals published in JAMA Network Open.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) study was designed to compare initial antihypertensive treatments with a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (lisinopril) or an alpha-blocker (doxazosin), and a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone).

The composite primary outcome was fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), but long-term data were lacking, wrote Jose-Miguel Yamal, PhD, of University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, and colleagues. A previous study with 8-13 years of follow-up showed no significant differences in mortality between the treatment groups, the researchers noted.

In the current study, a prespecified secondary analysis of ALLHAT, the researchers added 11 more years of data for a total of 19-24 years of follow-up after randomization.

In the original ALLHAT, 32,804 adults aged 55 years and older with a diagnosis of hypertension and at least one additional coronary heart disease risk factor were followed for 4-8 years for all-cause mortality. A subgroup of 22,754 were followed for fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) for a mean of 13.7 years, with a maximum of 23.9 years.

The study occurred from Feb. 23, 1994, to Dec. 31, 2017. The participants were randomized to receive a thiazide-type diuretic (15,002 patients), a CCB (8,898 patients), or an ACE inhibitor (8,904 patients).

The primary outcome was CVD mortality; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, combined fatal and nonfatal CVD (CVD morbidity), and both morbidity and mortality for coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and cancer.

At 23 years, CVD mortality rates per 100 persons were 23.7, 21.6, and 23.8 in the diuretic, CCB, and ACE inhibitor groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.97 for CCB vs. diuretics and 1.06 for ACE inhibitors vs. diuretics.

Although the risk of stroke mortality and of combined fatal and nonfatal hospitalized stroke was higher in the ACE inhibitor group compared with the diuretic group (adjusted hazard ratios 1.19 and 1.11, respectively), this increase was no longer significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. “In contrast to the in-trial and 8-year to 13-year analyses, we now observed that the lisinopril group had an increased risk of kidney disease mortality that emerged after approximately 13 years after randomization, but this effect was attenuated after adjustment for baseline variables,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential effect of unblinding if participants stopped the randomized drug, and by the lack of morbidity and mortality data on Canadian participants, Veterans Affairs participants, and those with no Medicare number, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on posttrial medication use, blood pressure, and laboratory findings, they said.

However, the results over the follow-up period of up to 23 years supported those of the larger ALLHAT study, with similar outcomes among the drugs, and with 11 years of passive follow-up, “the results for lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone for stroke and stroke mortality are almost the same,” they concluded.
 

Findings support current practice, but new drug data are needed

The current study was important to determine whether there was a significant difference in long-term morbidity and mortality between patients treated with thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors, Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview.

“Previously reported data had indicated no significant differences between patients randomized to one of these three classes of antihypertensive medications during the trial period or at 8-13 years post trial,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep is chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

“This study reinforces the previously noted benefits of the three classes of antihypertensive medications, as well as the higher rates of cardiovascular disease and stroke in the ACE inhibitor arm,” he said.

In clinical practice, the results suggest that thiazide diuretics should be considered first-line agents for management of hypertension based on their noninferiority compared with ACE inhibitors and CCBs, and lower risk of stroke compared with ACE inhibitors, Dr. Deep said in an interview. “All three classes of antihypertensive medications are equally efficacious in blood pressure control and preventing all-cause mortality,” he said.

More research is needed in the wake of the introduction of other classes of antihypertensives since the original ALLHAT trial, Dr. Deep said. “It would be beneficial to assess the relative benefit/risks of those medications compared to the thiazide diuretics, and I would also look at studies comparing beta blockers to the thiazide diuretics,” he said. The question remains as to whether outcomes were affected by patients’ use of other classes of antihypertensives after the trial period, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Long-term data showed negligible differences in mortality among hypertensive adults treated with thiazide-type diuretics, calcium channel blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in a review of nearly 33,000 individuals published in JAMA Network Open.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) study was designed to compare initial antihypertensive treatments with a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (lisinopril) or an alpha-blocker (doxazosin), and a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone).

The composite primary outcome was fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), but long-term data were lacking, wrote Jose-Miguel Yamal, PhD, of University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, and colleagues. A previous study with 8-13 years of follow-up showed no significant differences in mortality between the treatment groups, the researchers noted.

In the current study, a prespecified secondary analysis of ALLHAT, the researchers added 11 more years of data for a total of 19-24 years of follow-up after randomization.

In the original ALLHAT, 32,804 adults aged 55 years and older with a diagnosis of hypertension and at least one additional coronary heart disease risk factor were followed for 4-8 years for all-cause mortality. A subgroup of 22,754 were followed for fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) for a mean of 13.7 years, with a maximum of 23.9 years.

The study occurred from Feb. 23, 1994, to Dec. 31, 2017. The participants were randomized to receive a thiazide-type diuretic (15,002 patients), a CCB (8,898 patients), or an ACE inhibitor (8,904 patients).

The primary outcome was CVD mortality; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, combined fatal and nonfatal CVD (CVD morbidity), and both morbidity and mortality for coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and cancer.

At 23 years, CVD mortality rates per 100 persons were 23.7, 21.6, and 23.8 in the diuretic, CCB, and ACE inhibitor groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.97 for CCB vs. diuretics and 1.06 for ACE inhibitors vs. diuretics.

Although the risk of stroke mortality and of combined fatal and nonfatal hospitalized stroke was higher in the ACE inhibitor group compared with the diuretic group (adjusted hazard ratios 1.19 and 1.11, respectively), this increase was no longer significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. “In contrast to the in-trial and 8-year to 13-year analyses, we now observed that the lisinopril group had an increased risk of kidney disease mortality that emerged after approximately 13 years after randomization, but this effect was attenuated after adjustment for baseline variables,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential effect of unblinding if participants stopped the randomized drug, and by the lack of morbidity and mortality data on Canadian participants, Veterans Affairs participants, and those with no Medicare number, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on posttrial medication use, blood pressure, and laboratory findings, they said.

However, the results over the follow-up period of up to 23 years supported those of the larger ALLHAT study, with similar outcomes among the drugs, and with 11 years of passive follow-up, “the results for lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone for stroke and stroke mortality are almost the same,” they concluded.
 

Findings support current practice, but new drug data are needed

The current study was important to determine whether there was a significant difference in long-term morbidity and mortality between patients treated with thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors, Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview.

“Previously reported data had indicated no significant differences between patients randomized to one of these three classes of antihypertensive medications during the trial period or at 8-13 years post trial,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep is chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

“This study reinforces the previously noted benefits of the three classes of antihypertensive medications, as well as the higher rates of cardiovascular disease and stroke in the ACE inhibitor arm,” he said.

In clinical practice, the results suggest that thiazide diuretics should be considered first-line agents for management of hypertension based on their noninferiority compared with ACE inhibitors and CCBs, and lower risk of stroke compared with ACE inhibitors, Dr. Deep said in an interview. “All three classes of antihypertensive medications are equally efficacious in blood pressure control and preventing all-cause mortality,” he said.

More research is needed in the wake of the introduction of other classes of antihypertensives since the original ALLHAT trial, Dr. Deep said. “It would be beneficial to assess the relative benefit/risks of those medications compared to the thiazide diuretics, and I would also look at studies comparing beta blockers to the thiazide diuretics,” he said. The question remains as to whether outcomes were affected by patients’ use of other classes of antihypertensives after the trial period, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Long-term data showed negligible differences in mortality among hypertensive adults treated with thiazide-type diuretics, calcium channel blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in a review of nearly 33,000 individuals published in JAMA Network Open.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) study was designed to compare initial antihypertensive treatments with a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (lisinopril) or an alpha-blocker (doxazosin), and a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone).

The composite primary outcome was fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), but long-term data were lacking, wrote Jose-Miguel Yamal, PhD, of University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, and colleagues. A previous study with 8-13 years of follow-up showed no significant differences in mortality between the treatment groups, the researchers noted.

In the current study, a prespecified secondary analysis of ALLHAT, the researchers added 11 more years of data for a total of 19-24 years of follow-up after randomization.

In the original ALLHAT, 32,804 adults aged 55 years and older with a diagnosis of hypertension and at least one additional coronary heart disease risk factor were followed for 4-8 years for all-cause mortality. A subgroup of 22,754 were followed for fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) for a mean of 13.7 years, with a maximum of 23.9 years.

The study occurred from Feb. 23, 1994, to Dec. 31, 2017. The participants were randomized to receive a thiazide-type diuretic (15,002 patients), a CCB (8,898 patients), or an ACE inhibitor (8,904 patients).

The primary outcome was CVD mortality; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, combined fatal and nonfatal CVD (CVD morbidity), and both morbidity and mortality for coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and cancer.

At 23 years, CVD mortality rates per 100 persons were 23.7, 21.6, and 23.8 in the diuretic, CCB, and ACE inhibitor groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.97 for CCB vs. diuretics and 1.06 for ACE inhibitors vs. diuretics.

Although the risk of stroke mortality and of combined fatal and nonfatal hospitalized stroke was higher in the ACE inhibitor group compared with the diuretic group (adjusted hazard ratios 1.19 and 1.11, respectively), this increase was no longer significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. “In contrast to the in-trial and 8-year to 13-year analyses, we now observed that the lisinopril group had an increased risk of kidney disease mortality that emerged after approximately 13 years after randomization, but this effect was attenuated after adjustment for baseline variables,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential effect of unblinding if participants stopped the randomized drug, and by the lack of morbidity and mortality data on Canadian participants, Veterans Affairs participants, and those with no Medicare number, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on posttrial medication use, blood pressure, and laboratory findings, they said.

However, the results over the follow-up period of up to 23 years supported those of the larger ALLHAT study, with similar outcomes among the drugs, and with 11 years of passive follow-up, “the results for lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone for stroke and stroke mortality are almost the same,” they concluded.
 

Findings support current practice, but new drug data are needed

The current study was important to determine whether there was a significant difference in long-term morbidity and mortality between patients treated with thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors, Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview.

“Previously reported data had indicated no significant differences between patients randomized to one of these three classes of antihypertensive medications during the trial period or at 8-13 years post trial,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep is chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

“This study reinforces the previously noted benefits of the three classes of antihypertensive medications, as well as the higher rates of cardiovascular disease and stroke in the ACE inhibitor arm,” he said.

In clinical practice, the results suggest that thiazide diuretics should be considered first-line agents for management of hypertension based on their noninferiority compared with ACE inhibitors and CCBs, and lower risk of stroke compared with ACE inhibitors, Dr. Deep said in an interview. “All three classes of antihypertensive medications are equally efficacious in blood pressure control and preventing all-cause mortality,” he said.

More research is needed in the wake of the introduction of other classes of antihypertensives since the original ALLHAT trial, Dr. Deep said. “It would be beneficial to assess the relative benefit/risks of those medications compared to the thiazide diuretics, and I would also look at studies comparing beta blockers to the thiazide diuretics,” he said. The question remains as to whether outcomes were affected by patients’ use of other classes of antihypertensives after the trial period, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

PHILADELPHIA — Promise that the unmet need for more effective pulmonary artery hypertension treatments may soon be met was in strong evidence in research into three strategies presented at this year’s recent American Heart Association scientific sessions; one was based on an ancient Chinese herb epimedium (yin yang huo or horny goat weed) commonly used for treating sexual dysfunction and directly related to the phosphodiesterase inhibitors sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil (sold as Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis). A second studied sotatercept, an investigational, potential first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor biologic, and a third evaluated physically ablating the baroreceptor nerves that stimulate vasoconstriction of the pulmonary artery via catheter-based techniques.

Until as recently as the late 1970s, a pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis was a uniformly fatal one.¹ While targeted therapies have since improved prognosis, pulmonary arterial hypertension remains a chronic and progressive disorder of the pulmonary vasculature with significant morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary and right ventricle remodeling, and leads toward heart failure and death. The complex underlying pathogenesis was divided into six groups by the 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (WSPH) in 2018, and includes as its most common features pulmonary artery endothelial cell dysfunction, pulmonary artery smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration, and dysregulated fibroblast activity leading to dysregulated vasoconstriction, micro and in-situ vascular thrombosis, vascular fibrosis and pathogenic remodeling of pulmonary vessels.¹ The threshold mean arterial pressure (mPAP) for pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by the 6th [WSPH] at mPAP ≥ 20 mm Hg, twice the upper limit of a normal mPAP of 14.0 ± 3.3 mm Hg as reported by Kovacs et al. in 2018.²

Pathways for current therapies

Current drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension focus on three signaling pathways, including the endothelin receptor, prostacyclin and nitric oxide pathways, stated Zhi-Cheng Jing, MD, professor of medicine, head of the cardiology department at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking, China. While the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors sildenafil and tadalafil, which target the nitric oxide pathway, came into wide use after Food and Drug Administration approval, the need for higher PDE5-selectivity remains, Dr. Jing said. Structurally modified from the active ingredient in epimedium, TPN171H is an investigational PDE5 inhibitor which has shown several favorable features: a greater PDE5 selectivity than both sildenafil and tadalafil in vitro, an ability to decrease right ventricular systolic pressure and alleviate arterial remodeling in animal studies, and safety and tolerability in healthy human subjects.

The current randomized, double-blind, placebo-and active-controlled phase IIa study assessed the hemodynamic impact of a single oral dose of TPN171H in 60 pulmonary arterial hypertension patients (mean age ~34 years, 83.3% female), all with negative vasodilation test results and in WHO class 2 or 3. Only patients aged 18-75 years with group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension of idiopathic, connective tissue disorder, or repaired congenital heart defects etiology were included. Patients were divided into six groups: placebo, TPN171H at 2.5, 5, and 10 milligrams, and tadalafil at 20 and 40 milligrams.

For the primary endpoint of maximum decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), significant reductions vs. placebo were found only for the TPN171H 5-mg group (–41.2% vs. –24.4%; P = .008) and for the 20-mg (–39.8%) and 40-mg (–37.6%) tadalafil groups (both P < .05). What was not seen in the tadalafil groups, but was evident in the TPN171H 5-mg group, was a significant reduction in the secondary endpoint of PVR/SVR (systolic vascular resistance) at 2, 3, and 5 hours (all P < .05). “As we know,” Dr. Jing said in an interview, “the PDE5 inhibitor functions as a vasodilator, having an impact on both pulmonary circulation and systemic circulation. So, to evaluate the  selectivity for pulmonary circulation is crucial when exploring a novel drug for pulmonary arterial hypertension. The change of PVR/SVR ratio from baseline is an indicator for selectivity for pulmonary circulation and implies that TPN171H has good PDE5 selectivity in the pulmonary vasculature,” Dr. Jing said.

TPN171H was well tolerated with no serious adverse effects (vomiting 10% and headache 10% were most common with no discontinuations).
 

TGF-signaling pathway

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of sotatercept, an investigational fusion protein under priority FDA review that modulates the TGF-beta superfamily signaling pathway, looked at PVR, pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), right arterial pressure (RAP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). A literature search by corresponding author Vamsikalyan Borra, MD, Knapp Medical Center, Weslaco, Texas, and colleagues identified two trials (STELLAR and PULSAR) comprising 429 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The experimental arms (sotatercept) had 237 patients (mean age ~49 years, ~82% female) and the placebo arm had 192 patients (mean age ~47 years, ~80% female).

A pooled analysis showed significant reductions with sotatercept in PVR (standardization mean difference [SMD] = –1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –1.2, –.79, P < .001), PAP (SMD = –1.34, 95% CI = 1.6, –1.08, P < .001), RAP (SMD = –0.66, 95% CI = –0.93, –0.39, P < .001), and the levels of NT-proBNP (SMD = –0.64, 95% CI = –1.01, –0.27, P < .001) at 24 weeks from baseline. The sotatercept safety profile was favorable, with lower overall incidence of adverse events (84.8% vs. 87.5%) and fewer adverse events leading to death (0.4% vs. 3.1%) compared with placebo. Further investigation is needed, however, according to Dr. Borra, into the higher frequency of reported thrombocytopenia (71.7% vs. 20.8%) with sotatercept. “Our findings,” Dr. Borra said in a poster session, “suggest that sotatercept is an effective treatment option for pulmonary arterial hypertension, with the potential to improve both pulmonary and cardiac function.”
 

Denervation technique

Catheter-based ablation techniques, most commonly using thermal energy, target the afferent and efferent fibers of the baroreceptor reflex in the main pulmonary artery trunk and bifurcation involved in elevated pulmonary artery pressure. Mounica Vorla, MD, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois, and colleagues conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) for pulmonary arterial hypertension in seven clinical trials with 506 patients with moderate-severe pulmonary arterial hypertension conducted from 2013 to 2022.

Compared with placebo, PADN treatment was associated with a significant reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressure (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –6.9 mm Hg; 95% CI = –9.7, –4.1; P < .01; I2 = 61) and pulmonary vascular resistance (WMD = –3.2; 95% CI = –5.4, –0.9; P = .005). PADN improvements in cardiac output were also statistically significant (WMD = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.6; P = .012), with numerical improvement in 6-minute walking distance (WMD = 67.7; 95% CI = –3.73, 139.2; P = .06) in the PADN group. Side effects were less common in the PADN group as compared with the placebo group, Dr. Vorla reported. She concluded, “This updated meta-analysis supports PADN as a safe and efficacious therapy for severe pulmonary arterial hypertension.” The authors noted limitations imposed by the small sample size, large data heterogeneity, and medium-quality literature. Larger randomized, controlled trials with clinical endpoints comparing PADN with optimal medical therapy are needed, they stated.
 

References

1. Shah AJ et al. New Drugs and Therapies in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Mar 19;24(6):5850. doi: 10.3390/ijms24065850. PMID: 36982922; PMCID: PMC10058689.

2. Kovacs G et al. Pulmonary Vascular Involvement in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Is There a Pulmonary Vascular Phenotype? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct 15;198(8):1000-11. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201801-0095PP. PMID: 29746142.

PHILADELPHIA — Promise that the unmet need for more effective pulmonary artery hypertension treatments may soon be met was in strong evidence in research into three strategies presented at this year’s recent American Heart Association scientific sessions; one was based on an ancient Chinese herb epimedium (yin yang huo or horny goat weed) commonly used for treating sexual dysfunction and directly related to the phosphodiesterase inhibitors sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil (sold as Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis). A second studied sotatercept, an investigational, potential first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor biologic, and a third evaluated physically ablating the baroreceptor nerves that stimulate vasoconstriction of the pulmonary artery via catheter-based techniques.

Until as recently as the late 1970s, a pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis was a uniformly fatal one.¹ While targeted therapies have since improved prognosis, pulmonary arterial hypertension remains a chronic and progressive disorder of the pulmonary vasculature with significant morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary and right ventricle remodeling, and leads toward heart failure and death. The complex underlying pathogenesis was divided into six groups by the 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (WSPH) in 2018, and includes as its most common features pulmonary artery endothelial cell dysfunction, pulmonary artery smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration, and dysregulated fibroblast activity leading to dysregulated vasoconstriction, micro and in-situ vascular thrombosis, vascular fibrosis and pathogenic remodeling of pulmonary vessels.¹ The threshold mean arterial pressure (mPAP) for pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by the 6th [WSPH] at mPAP ≥ 20 mm Hg, twice the upper limit of a normal mPAP of 14.0 ± 3.3 mm Hg as reported by Kovacs et al. in 2018.²

Pathways for current therapies

Current drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension focus on three signaling pathways, including the endothelin receptor, prostacyclin and nitric oxide pathways, stated Zhi-Cheng Jing, MD, professor of medicine, head of the cardiology department at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking, China. While the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors sildenafil and tadalafil, which target the nitric oxide pathway, came into wide use after Food and Drug Administration approval, the need for higher PDE5-selectivity remains, Dr. Jing said. Structurally modified from the active ingredient in epimedium, TPN171H is an investigational PDE5 inhibitor which has shown several favorable features: a greater PDE5 selectivity than both sildenafil and tadalafil in vitro, an ability to decrease right ventricular systolic pressure and alleviate arterial remodeling in animal studies, and safety and tolerability in healthy human subjects.

The current randomized, double-blind, placebo-and active-controlled phase IIa study assessed the hemodynamic impact of a single oral dose of TPN171H in 60 pulmonary arterial hypertension patients (mean age ~34 years, 83.3% female), all with negative vasodilation test results and in WHO class 2 or 3. Only patients aged 18-75 years with group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension of idiopathic, connective tissue disorder, or repaired congenital heart defects etiology were included. Patients were divided into six groups: placebo, TPN171H at 2.5, 5, and 10 milligrams, and tadalafil at 20 and 40 milligrams.

For the primary endpoint of maximum decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), significant reductions vs. placebo were found only for the TPN171H 5-mg group (–41.2% vs. –24.4%; P = .008) and for the 20-mg (–39.8%) and 40-mg (–37.6%) tadalafil groups (both P < .05). What was not seen in the tadalafil groups, but was evident in the TPN171H 5-mg group, was a significant reduction in the secondary endpoint of PVR/SVR (systolic vascular resistance) at 2, 3, and 5 hours (all P < .05). “As we know,” Dr. Jing said in an interview, “the PDE5 inhibitor functions as a vasodilator, having an impact on both pulmonary circulation and systemic circulation. So, to evaluate the  selectivity for pulmonary circulation is crucial when exploring a novel drug for pulmonary arterial hypertension. The change of PVR/SVR ratio from baseline is an indicator for selectivity for pulmonary circulation and implies that TPN171H has good PDE5 selectivity in the pulmonary vasculature,” Dr. Jing said.

TPN171H was well tolerated with no serious adverse effects (vomiting 10% and headache 10% were most common with no discontinuations).
 

TGF-signaling pathway

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of sotatercept, an investigational fusion protein under priority FDA review that modulates the TGF-beta superfamily signaling pathway, looked at PVR, pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), right arterial pressure (RAP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). A literature search by corresponding author Vamsikalyan Borra, MD, Knapp Medical Center, Weslaco, Texas, and colleagues identified two trials (STELLAR and PULSAR) comprising 429 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The experimental arms (sotatercept) had 237 patients (mean age ~49 years, ~82% female) and the placebo arm had 192 patients (mean age ~47 years, ~80% female).

A pooled analysis showed significant reductions with sotatercept in PVR (standardization mean difference [SMD] = –1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –1.2, –.79, P < .001), PAP (SMD = –1.34, 95% CI = 1.6, –1.08, P < .001), RAP (SMD = –0.66, 95% CI = –0.93, –0.39, P < .001), and the levels of NT-proBNP (SMD = –0.64, 95% CI = –1.01, –0.27, P < .001) at 24 weeks from baseline. The sotatercept safety profile was favorable, with lower overall incidence of adverse events (84.8% vs. 87.5%) and fewer adverse events leading to death (0.4% vs. 3.1%) compared with placebo. Further investigation is needed, however, according to Dr. Borra, into the higher frequency of reported thrombocytopenia (71.7% vs. 20.8%) with sotatercept. “Our findings,” Dr. Borra said in a poster session, “suggest that sotatercept is an effective treatment option for pulmonary arterial hypertension, with the potential to improve both pulmonary and cardiac function.”
 

Denervation technique

Catheter-based ablation techniques, most commonly using thermal energy, target the afferent and efferent fibers of the baroreceptor reflex in the main pulmonary artery trunk and bifurcation involved in elevated pulmonary artery pressure. Mounica Vorla, MD, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois, and colleagues conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) for pulmonary arterial hypertension in seven clinical trials with 506 patients with moderate-severe pulmonary arterial hypertension conducted from 2013 to 2022.

Compared with placebo, PADN treatment was associated with a significant reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressure (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –6.9 mm Hg; 95% CI = –9.7, –4.1; P < .01; I2 = 61) and pulmonary vascular resistance (WMD = –3.2; 95% CI = –5.4, –0.9; P = .005). PADN improvements in cardiac output were also statistically significant (WMD = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.6; P = .012), with numerical improvement in 6-minute walking distance (WMD = 67.7; 95% CI = –3.73, 139.2; P = .06) in the PADN group. Side effects were less common in the PADN group as compared with the placebo group, Dr. Vorla reported. She concluded, “This updated meta-analysis supports PADN as a safe and efficacious therapy for severe pulmonary arterial hypertension.” The authors noted limitations imposed by the small sample size, large data heterogeneity, and medium-quality literature. Larger randomized, controlled trials with clinical endpoints comparing PADN with optimal medical therapy are needed, they stated.
 

References

1. Shah AJ et al. New Drugs and Therapies in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Mar 19;24(6):5850. doi: 10.3390/ijms24065850. PMID: 36982922; PMCID: PMC10058689.

2. Kovacs G et al. Pulmonary Vascular Involvement in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Is There a Pulmonary Vascular Phenotype? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct 15;198(8):1000-11. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201801-0095PP. PMID: 29746142.

PHILADELPHIA — Promise that the unmet need for more effective pulmonary artery hypertension treatments may soon be met was in strong evidence in research into three strategies presented at this year’s recent American Heart Association scientific sessions; one was based on an ancient Chinese herb epimedium (yin yang huo or horny goat weed) commonly used for treating sexual dysfunction and directly related to the phosphodiesterase inhibitors sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil (sold as Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis). A second studied sotatercept, an investigational, potential first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor biologic, and a third evaluated physically ablating the baroreceptor nerves that stimulate vasoconstriction of the pulmonary artery via catheter-based techniques.

Until as recently as the late 1970s, a pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis was a uniformly fatal one.¹ While targeted therapies have since improved prognosis, pulmonary arterial hypertension remains a chronic and progressive disorder of the pulmonary vasculature with significant morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary and right ventricle remodeling, and leads toward heart failure and death. The complex underlying pathogenesis was divided into six groups by the 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (WSPH) in 2018, and includes as its most common features pulmonary artery endothelial cell dysfunction, pulmonary artery smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration, and dysregulated fibroblast activity leading to dysregulated vasoconstriction, micro and in-situ vascular thrombosis, vascular fibrosis and pathogenic remodeling of pulmonary vessels.¹ The threshold mean arterial pressure (mPAP) for pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by the 6th [WSPH] at mPAP ≥ 20 mm Hg, twice the upper limit of a normal mPAP of 14.0 ± 3.3 mm Hg as reported by Kovacs et al. in 2018.²

Pathways for current therapies

Current drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension focus on three signaling pathways, including the endothelin receptor, prostacyclin and nitric oxide pathways, stated Zhi-Cheng Jing, MD, professor of medicine, head of the cardiology department at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking, China. While the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors sildenafil and tadalafil, which target the nitric oxide pathway, came into wide use after Food and Drug Administration approval, the need for higher PDE5-selectivity remains, Dr. Jing said. Structurally modified from the active ingredient in epimedium, TPN171H is an investigational PDE5 inhibitor which has shown several favorable features: a greater PDE5 selectivity than both sildenafil and tadalafil in vitro, an ability to decrease right ventricular systolic pressure and alleviate arterial remodeling in animal studies, and safety and tolerability in healthy human subjects.

The current randomized, double-blind, placebo-and active-controlled phase IIa study assessed the hemodynamic impact of a single oral dose of TPN171H in 60 pulmonary arterial hypertension patients (mean age ~34 years, 83.3% female), all with negative vasodilation test results and in WHO class 2 or 3. Only patients aged 18-75 years with group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension of idiopathic, connective tissue disorder, or repaired congenital heart defects etiology were included. Patients were divided into six groups: placebo, TPN171H at 2.5, 5, and 10 milligrams, and tadalafil at 20 and 40 milligrams.

For the primary endpoint of maximum decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), significant reductions vs. placebo were found only for the TPN171H 5-mg group (–41.2% vs. –24.4%; P = .008) and for the 20-mg (–39.8%) and 40-mg (–37.6%) tadalafil groups (both P < .05). What was not seen in the tadalafil groups, but was evident in the TPN171H 5-mg group, was a significant reduction in the secondary endpoint of PVR/SVR (systolic vascular resistance) at 2, 3, and 5 hours (all P < .05). “As we know,” Dr. Jing said in an interview, “the PDE5 inhibitor functions as a vasodilator, having an impact on both pulmonary circulation and systemic circulation. So, to evaluate the  selectivity for pulmonary circulation is crucial when exploring a novel drug for pulmonary arterial hypertension. The change of PVR/SVR ratio from baseline is an indicator for selectivity for pulmonary circulation and implies that TPN171H has good PDE5 selectivity in the pulmonary vasculature,” Dr. Jing said.

TPN171H was well tolerated with no serious adverse effects (vomiting 10% and headache 10% were most common with no discontinuations).
 

TGF-signaling pathway

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of sotatercept, an investigational fusion protein under priority FDA review that modulates the TGF-beta superfamily signaling pathway, looked at PVR, pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), right arterial pressure (RAP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). A literature search by corresponding author Vamsikalyan Borra, MD, Knapp Medical Center, Weslaco, Texas, and colleagues identified two trials (STELLAR and PULSAR) comprising 429 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The experimental arms (sotatercept) had 237 patients (mean age ~49 years, ~82% female) and the placebo arm had 192 patients (mean age ~47 years, ~80% female).

A pooled analysis showed significant reductions with sotatercept in PVR (standardization mean difference [SMD] = –1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –1.2, –.79, P < .001), PAP (SMD = –1.34, 95% CI = 1.6, –1.08, P < .001), RAP (SMD = –0.66, 95% CI = –0.93, –0.39, P < .001), and the levels of NT-proBNP (SMD = –0.64, 95% CI = –1.01, –0.27, P < .001) at 24 weeks from baseline. The sotatercept safety profile was favorable, with lower overall incidence of adverse events (84.8% vs. 87.5%) and fewer adverse events leading to death (0.4% vs. 3.1%) compared with placebo. Further investigation is needed, however, according to Dr. Borra, into the higher frequency of reported thrombocytopenia (71.7% vs. 20.8%) with sotatercept. “Our findings,” Dr. Borra said in a poster session, “suggest that sotatercept is an effective treatment option for pulmonary arterial hypertension, with the potential to improve both pulmonary and cardiac function.”
 

Denervation technique

Catheter-based ablation techniques, most commonly using thermal energy, target the afferent and efferent fibers of the baroreceptor reflex in the main pulmonary artery trunk and bifurcation involved in elevated pulmonary artery pressure. Mounica Vorla, MD, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois, and colleagues conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) for pulmonary arterial hypertension in seven clinical trials with 506 patients with moderate-severe pulmonary arterial hypertension conducted from 2013 to 2022.

Compared with placebo, PADN treatment was associated with a significant reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressure (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –6.9 mm Hg; 95% CI = –9.7, –4.1; P < .01; I2 = 61) and pulmonary vascular resistance (WMD = –3.2; 95% CI = –5.4, –0.9; P = .005). PADN improvements in cardiac output were also statistically significant (WMD = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.6; P = .012), with numerical improvement in 6-minute walking distance (WMD = 67.7; 95% CI = –3.73, 139.2; P = .06) in the PADN group. Side effects were less common in the PADN group as compared with the placebo group, Dr. Vorla reported. She concluded, “This updated meta-analysis supports PADN as a safe and efficacious therapy for severe pulmonary arterial hypertension.” The authors noted limitations imposed by the small sample size, large data heterogeneity, and medium-quality literature. Larger randomized, controlled trials with clinical endpoints comparing PADN with optimal medical therapy are needed, they stated.
 

References

1. Shah AJ et al. New Drugs and Therapies in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Mar 19;24(6):5850. doi: 10.3390/ijms24065850. PMID: 36982922; PMCID: PMC10058689.

2. Kovacs G et al. Pulmonary Vascular Involvement in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Is There a Pulmonary Vascular Phenotype? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct 15;198(8):1000-11. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201801-0095PP. PMID: 29746142.

TOPLINE:

Reducing the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) significantly reduces kidney risk in people with type 2 diabetes, per new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc retrospective analysis of two phase 3 double-blind trials of finerenone in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease
• Quantify the long-term health effects of reducing UACR within 4 months of taking finerenone by examining the records of 12,512 participants with an equal chance of receiving finerenone or placebo
• Isolate the impact of UACR reduction on kidney function and cardiovascular function by tracking health indicators related to the kidneys and the heart in participants for up to 4 years

TAKEAWAY:

• Over half of participants who received finerenone had reduced UACR by at least 30% from the baseline of 514 mg/g at the 4-month point after starting treatment, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 33%.
• By 4 months, a little over a quarter of participants who received the placebo had reduced their UACR levels by at least 30%, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 2.6%.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced kidney risk by 64%, as measured by reductions in kidney failure, sufficient glomerular filtration, and death from kidney disease.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced cardiovascular risk by 26%, as measured by fewer incidences of cardiovascular death, nonfatal infarction or stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.

IN PRACTICE:

“Achieving early UACR reduction can lead to tangible benefits for kidney and cardiovascular health,” the authors note.

SOURCE:

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine; the lead author is Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS.

LIMITATIONS:

The study pertains only to finerenone, so the findings cannot be extrapolated to other drugs with different mechanisms of action.

DISCLOSURES:

Bayer AG Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures finerenone, was the primary funder of the study. The US National Institutes of Health and Veterans Administration also provided funding. Some study authors are full-time employees of Bayer AG. Many authors report consulting relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reducing the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) significantly reduces kidney risk in people with type 2 diabetes, per new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc retrospective analysis of two phase 3 double-blind trials of finerenone in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease
• Quantify the long-term health effects of reducing UACR within 4 months of taking finerenone by examining the records of 12,512 participants with an equal chance of receiving finerenone or placebo
• Isolate the impact of UACR reduction on kidney function and cardiovascular function by tracking health indicators related to the kidneys and the heart in participants for up to 4 years

TAKEAWAY:

• Over half of participants who received finerenone had reduced UACR by at least 30% from the baseline of 514 mg/g at the 4-month point after starting treatment, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 33%.
• By 4 months, a little over a quarter of participants who received the placebo had reduced their UACR levels by at least 30%, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 2.6%.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced kidney risk by 64%, as measured by reductions in kidney failure, sufficient glomerular filtration, and death from kidney disease.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced cardiovascular risk by 26%, as measured by fewer incidences of cardiovascular death, nonfatal infarction or stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.

IN PRACTICE:

“Achieving early UACR reduction can lead to tangible benefits for kidney and cardiovascular health,” the authors note.

SOURCE:

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine; the lead author is Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS.

LIMITATIONS:

The study pertains only to finerenone, so the findings cannot be extrapolated to other drugs with different mechanisms of action.

DISCLOSURES:

Bayer AG Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures finerenone, was the primary funder of the study. The US National Institutes of Health and Veterans Administration also provided funding. Some study authors are full-time employees of Bayer AG. Many authors report consulting relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reducing the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) significantly reduces kidney risk in people with type 2 diabetes, per new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc retrospective analysis of two phase 3 double-blind trials of finerenone in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease
• Quantify the long-term health effects of reducing UACR within 4 months of taking finerenone by examining the records of 12,512 participants with an equal chance of receiving finerenone or placebo
• Isolate the impact of UACR reduction on kidney function and cardiovascular function by tracking health indicators related to the kidneys and the heart in participants for up to 4 years

TAKEAWAY:

• Over half of participants who received finerenone had reduced UACR by at least 30% from the baseline of 514 mg/g at the 4-month point after starting treatment, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 33%.
• By 4 months, a little over a quarter of participants who received the placebo had reduced their UACR levels by at least 30%, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 2.6%.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced kidney risk by 64%, as measured by reductions in kidney failure, sufficient glomerular filtration, and death from kidney disease.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced cardiovascular risk by 26%, as measured by fewer incidences of cardiovascular death, nonfatal infarction or stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.

IN PRACTICE:

“Achieving early UACR reduction can lead to tangible benefits for kidney and cardiovascular health,” the authors note.

SOURCE:

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine; the lead author is Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS.

LIMITATIONS:

The study pertains only to finerenone, so the findings cannot be extrapolated to other drugs with different mechanisms of action.

DISCLOSURES:

Bayer AG Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures finerenone, was the primary funder of the study. The US National Institutes of Health and Veterans Administration also provided funding. Some study authors are full-time employees of Bayer AG. Many authors report consulting relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.