User login
New trial suggests CV benefit with EPA: RESPECT-EPA
The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.
The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.
Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.
Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.
“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”
However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT.
“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease.
Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.
Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.
The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.
They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.
The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.
The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).
The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.
Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.
The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).
The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).
In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.
In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).
Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
‘Massive loss’ of patients
Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.
“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented.
“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.
The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”
On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
Supportive data
But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.
“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.
“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.
He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.
“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
Magnitude of benefit uncertain?
Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”
“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.
Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”
She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.
The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.
The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.
Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.
Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.
“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”
However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT.
“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease.
Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.
Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.
The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.
They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.
The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.
The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).
The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.
Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.
The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).
The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).
In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.
In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).
Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
‘Massive loss’ of patients
Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.
“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented.
“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.
The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”
On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
Supportive data
But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.
“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.
“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.
He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.
“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
Magnitude of benefit uncertain?
Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”
“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.
Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”
She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.
The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.
The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.
Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.
Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.
“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”
However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT.
“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease.
Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.
Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.
The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.
They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.
The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.
The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).
The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.
Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.
The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).
The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).
In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.
In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).
Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
‘Massive loss’ of patients
Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.
“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented.
“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.
The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”
On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
Supportive data
But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.
“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.
“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.
He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.
“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
Magnitude of benefit uncertain?
Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”
“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.
Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”
She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.
The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2022
Precision CAD testing shows 70% cut in composite risk at 1 year
Benefits accrue on multiple endpoints
CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.
The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.
Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
Strategy is simple but effective
Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.
After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.
In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care
In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.
Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.
Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).
In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.
Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.
New protocol called preferred approach
On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”
Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.
Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.
Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”
Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.
In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.
Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.
Benefits accrue on multiple endpoints
Benefits accrue on multiple endpoints
CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.
The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.
Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
Strategy is simple but effective
Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.
After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.
In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care
In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.
Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.
Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).
In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.
Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.
New protocol called preferred approach
On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”
Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.
Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.
Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”
Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.
In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.
Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.
CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.
The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.
Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
Strategy is simple but effective
Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.
After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.
In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care
In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.
Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.
Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).
In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.
Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.
New protocol called preferred approach
On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”
Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.
Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.
Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”
Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.
In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.
Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.
AT AHA 2022
ISCHEMIA-EXTEND: Conservative stable CAD management holds up
CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.
During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
Nil probability of a survival benefit
“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.
“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.
The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.
While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.
Follow-up without adjudication
The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.
The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.
However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.
“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.
Staying alive is what patients care about
“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.
But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.
“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”
But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.
“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management
After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.
“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”
To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.
ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.
CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.
During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
Nil probability of a survival benefit
“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.
“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.
The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.
While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.
Follow-up without adjudication
The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.
The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.
However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.
“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.
Staying alive is what patients care about
“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.
But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.
“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”
But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.
“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management
After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.
“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”
To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.
ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.
CHICAGO – The case for survival equipoise between an invasive or conservative strategy for managing patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe cardiac ischemia grew stronger with an additional 2.5 years of median follow-up of the landmark ISCHEMIA trial.
During a median follow-up of 5.7 years in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND – and as long as 7 years – patients randomized to an upfront invasive strategy regardless of their symptoms had an all-cause mortality rate of 12.7%, compared with a 13.4% rate in the patients randomized to the conservative, medication-based management strategy that employed revascularization only when the medical approach failed to resolve their angina. This survival difference fell far short of significance (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.18), solidifying a finding first seen in the main ISCHEMIA results when they came out 3 years before, in late 2019, Judith S. Hochman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The new results “provide evidence for patients with chronic coronary disease and their physicians as they decide whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical therapy,” concluded Dr. Hochman, professor and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University Langone Health. Simultaneous with her report, the extended follow-up results also appeared in an article published online in Circulation.
Nil probability of a survival benefit
“The probability over 5.7 years that a patient’s risk of dying is lower with the invasive strategy is nil, which means: Go with the patient’s preference. Not undergoing revascularization is a reasonable strategy because there is no excess mortality,” Dr. Hochman said in an interview. The trial’s extended follow-up provides “much more robust evidence” for the neutral effect on survival. The investigators plan to further follow-up out to a maximum of 10 years to continue to monitor for a signal of a mortality difference.
“These findings might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischemia,” commented M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, designated discussant for the report and chief of cardiology for INECO Neurosciences in Rosario, Argentina.
The original ISCHEMIA results had also shown that invasive intervention can improve the quality of life in patients who have angina as a result of their coronary disease, but also showed “minimal benefits” from an invasive approach in asymptomatic patients, who comprised 35% of the study cohort of 5,179 patients.
While ISCHEMIA enrolled patients with moderate to severe coronary ischemia identified with noninvasive testing, it excluded certain patients for whom an invasive strategy is recommended, including those with unprotected left main coronary stenoses of at least 50%, a recent acute coronary syndrome event, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, more advanced functional limitations from heart failure, or advanced chronic kidney disease.
Follow-up without adjudication
The extended follow-up included 4,825 patients from the initial cohort, with data collected from 4,540 patients. One limitation of the follow-up was that the cause of death was not adjudicated as it had been during the initial follow-up phase. It instead relied on unconfirmed information collected either from patients’ families or national databases. The demographics and clinical profiles of the study participants available for extended follow-up closely matched the entire original study cohort.
The additional follow-up also revealed a significant survival benefit from the invasive approach for cardiovascular deaths, with an incidence of 8.6% in the conservative arm and 6.4% in the invasive group, an adjusted 22% relative reduction in this outcome favoring the invasive strategy (95% CI, 0.63-0.96). This difference had appeared as a nonsignificant signal in the initial 3.2-year median follow-up.
However, this significant benefit from the invasive strategy was counterbalanced by a surprising and inexplicable increase in deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those managed with the invasive strategy. Noncardiovascular deaths occurred in 5.5% of those in the invasive arm and in 4.4% of those in the conservative arm, a significant adjusted 44% relative increase in this outcome associated with invasive management. Again, this difference was not as clearly apparent after the initial follow-up phase.
“The increase in noncardiovascular deaths with the invasive strategy surprisingly persisted over time and offset” the cardiovascular survival benefit from upfront invasive treatment, explained Dr. Hochman. A prior report from the investigators looked in depth at the noncardiovascular deaths during the initial follow-up phase and found that most of the excess was caused by malignancies, although why this happened in the invasively treated patients remains a mystery.
Staying alive is what patients care about
“I think that interventional cardiologists who favor an invasive strategy will be excited to see this significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths, but patients don’t care what they die from. What patients care about is whether they are dead or alive,” Dr. Hochman noted.
But B. Hadley Wilson, MD, an interventional cardiologist and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, had a somewhat different take on these findings.
“We need to consider the significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality, as we sort out the conundrum” of the increase in noncardiovascular deaths,” he said in an interview. “Hopefully, the 10-year outcomes will help answer this.”
But until more information is available, the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND results have already helped advance the conversation that patients with stable coronary disease and their families have with clinicians about management decisions.
“I love that ISCHEMIA highlighted the importance of shared decision making and a heart team approach,” said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C.
Anecdotally, ISCHEMIA reduced invasive management
After the initial ISCHEMIA results were published nearly 3 years ago, “I think use of invasive treatment for these patients has decreased, although I have seen no numbers” that document this, said Dr. Wilson. “I think most interventional cardiologists would say that ISCHEMIA has had an impact,” with fewer patients who match the trial’s enrollment criteria undergoing invasive management.
“Anecdotally, cardiologists are reviewing the ISCHEMIA data with their patients,” agreed Dr. Hochman, who added that no actual data have yet appeared to document this, nor do data yet document a change in the use of invasive management. “It takes time to measure the impact.”
To expedite the shared decision-making process for these patients, the ISCHEMIA researchers are planning to make available an app that will allow patients and physicians to enter clinical and demographic data and see a calculated estimate of their future cardiovascular disease risk and how amenable it may be to modification by invasive management, Dr. Hochman said. The app would be available on the ISCHEMIA study website in 2023.
ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA EXTEND received no commercial funding. Dr. Hochman and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer.
AT AHA 2022
Diuretic agents equal to prevent CV events in hypertension: DCP
There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.
The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.
There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.
However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.
The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.
Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”
But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”
“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”
Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
Pragmatic study
The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.
“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”
Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.
Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.
In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).
There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.
In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?
In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).
“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”
He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”
Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.
“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”
Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.
“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”
Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.
She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.
“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.
Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.
He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”
Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.
These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.
The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.
The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.
There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.
However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.
The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.
Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”
But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”
“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”
Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
Pragmatic study
The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.
“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”
Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.
Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.
In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).
There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.
In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?
In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).
“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”
He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”
Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.
“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”
Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.
“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”
Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.
She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.
“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.
Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.
He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”
Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.
These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.
The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.
The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.
There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.
However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.
The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.
Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”
But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”
“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”
Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
Pragmatic study
The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.
“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”
Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.
Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.
In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).
There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.
In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?
In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).
“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”
He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”
Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.
“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”
Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.
“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”
Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.
She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.
“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.
Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.
He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”
Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.
These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.
The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2022
Triglyceride-lowering fails to show CV benefit in large fibrate trial
Twenty-five percent reduction has no effect
CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.
It is the most recent in a series of trials that have failed to associate a meaningful reduction in TGs with protection from a composite MACE endpoint. This is a pattern that dates back 20 years, even though earlier trials did suggest that hypertriglyceridemia was a targetable risk factor.
No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era
“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.
In the statin era, which began soon after the Helsinki Heart Study was published in 1987, Dr. Watson counted at least five studies with fibrates that had a null result.
In the setting of good control of LDL cholesterol, “fibrates have not been shown to further lower CV risk,” said Dr. Watson, who was invited by the AHA to discuss the PROMINENT trial.
In PROMINENT, 10,497 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to pemafibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor a (PPAR-a) agonist, or placebo. Pemafibrate is not currently available in North America or Europe, but it is licensed in Japan for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.
The primary efficacy endpoint of the double-blind trial was a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death.
The patients were eligible if they had TG levels from 200 to 400 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol levels of 40 mg/dL or below. Pemafibrate in a dose of 0.2 mg or placebo were taken twice daily. About two-thirds had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The goal was primary prevention in the remainder.
After a median follow-up of 3.4 years when the study was stopped for futility, the proportion of patients reaching a primary endpoint was slightly greater in the experimental arm (3.60 vs. 3.51 events per 100 patient-years). The hazard ratio, although not significant, was nominally in favor of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .67).
When events within the composite endpoint were assessed individually, there was no signal of benefit for any outcome. The rates of death from any cause, although numerically higher in the pemafibrate group (2.44 vs. 2.34 per 100 patient years), were also comparable.
Lipid profile improved as predicted
Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.
Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.
The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.
The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.
He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.
“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.
Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.
Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.
Twenty-five percent reduction has no effect
Twenty-five percent reduction has no effect
CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.
It is the most recent in a series of trials that have failed to associate a meaningful reduction in TGs with protection from a composite MACE endpoint. This is a pattern that dates back 20 years, even though earlier trials did suggest that hypertriglyceridemia was a targetable risk factor.
No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era
“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.
In the statin era, which began soon after the Helsinki Heart Study was published in 1987, Dr. Watson counted at least five studies with fibrates that had a null result.
In the setting of good control of LDL cholesterol, “fibrates have not been shown to further lower CV risk,” said Dr. Watson, who was invited by the AHA to discuss the PROMINENT trial.
In PROMINENT, 10,497 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to pemafibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor a (PPAR-a) agonist, or placebo. Pemafibrate is not currently available in North America or Europe, but it is licensed in Japan for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.
The primary efficacy endpoint of the double-blind trial was a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death.
The patients were eligible if they had TG levels from 200 to 400 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol levels of 40 mg/dL or below. Pemafibrate in a dose of 0.2 mg or placebo were taken twice daily. About two-thirds had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The goal was primary prevention in the remainder.
After a median follow-up of 3.4 years when the study was stopped for futility, the proportion of patients reaching a primary endpoint was slightly greater in the experimental arm (3.60 vs. 3.51 events per 100 patient-years). The hazard ratio, although not significant, was nominally in favor of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .67).
When events within the composite endpoint were assessed individually, there was no signal of benefit for any outcome. The rates of death from any cause, although numerically higher in the pemafibrate group (2.44 vs. 2.34 per 100 patient years), were also comparable.
Lipid profile improved as predicted
Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.
Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.
The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.
The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.
He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.
“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.
Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.
Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.
CHICAGO – Despite a 25% reduction in triglycerides (TGs) along with similar reductions in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and remnant cholesterol, a novel agent failed to provide any protection in a multinational trial against a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
“Our data further highlight the complexity of lipid mediators of residual risk among patients with insulin resistance who are receiving statin therapy,” reported Aruna Das Pradhan, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Queen Mary University, London.
It is the most recent in a series of trials that have failed to associate a meaningful reduction in TGs with protection from a composite MACE endpoint. This is a pattern that dates back 20 years, even though earlier trials did suggest that hypertriglyceridemia was a targetable risk factor.
No benefit from fibrates seen in statin era
“We have not seen a significant cardiovascular event reduction with a fibrate in the statin era,” according to Karol Watson, MD, PhD, director of the UCLA Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center, Los Angeles.
In the statin era, which began soon after the Helsinki Heart Study was published in 1987, Dr. Watson counted at least five studies with fibrates that had a null result.
In the setting of good control of LDL cholesterol, “fibrates have not been shown to further lower CV risk,” said Dr. Watson, who was invited by the AHA to discuss the PROMINENT trial.
In PROMINENT, 10,497 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to pemafibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor a (PPAR-a) agonist, or placebo. Pemafibrate is not currently available in North America or Europe, but it is licensed in Japan for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.
The primary efficacy endpoint of the double-blind trial was a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death.
The patients were eligible if they had TG levels from 200 to 400 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol levels of 40 mg/dL or below. Pemafibrate in a dose of 0.2 mg or placebo were taken twice daily. About two-thirds had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The goal was primary prevention in the remainder.
After a median follow-up of 3.4 years when the study was stopped for futility, the proportion of patients reaching a primary endpoint was slightly greater in the experimental arm (3.60 vs. 3.51 events per 100 patient-years). The hazard ratio, although not significant, was nominally in favor of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .67).
When events within the composite endpoint were assessed individually, there was no signal of benefit for any outcome. The rates of death from any cause, although numerically higher in the pemafibrate group (2.44 vs. 2.34 per 100 patient years), were also comparable.
Lipid profile improved as predicted
Yet, in regard to an improvement in the lipid profile, pemafibrate performed as predicted. When compared to placebo 4 months into the trial, pemafibrate was associated with median reductions of 26.2% in TGs, 25.8% in VLDL, and 25.6% in remnant cholesterol, which is cholesterol transported in TG-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling.
Furthermore, pemafibrate was associated with a median 27.6% reduction relative to placebo in apolipoprotein C-III and a median 4.8% reduction in apolipoprotein E, all of which would be expected to reduce CV risk.
The findings of PROMINENT were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine immediately after their presentation.
The findings of this study do not eliminate any hope for lowering residual CV risk with TG reductions, but they do suggest the relationship with other lipid subfractions is complex, according to Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
“I think that the lack of efficacy despite TG lowering may be largely due to a lack of an overall decrease in the apolipoprotein B level,” speculated Dr. Virani, who wrote an editorial that accompanied publication of the PROMINENT results.
He noted that pemafibrate is implicated in converting remnant cholesterol to LDL cholesterol, which might be one reason for a counterproductive effect on CV risk.
“In order for therapies that lower TG levels to be effective, they probably have to have mechanisms to increase clearance of TG-rich remnant lipoprotein cholesterol particles rather than just converting remnant lipoproteins to LDL,” Dr. Virani explained in an attempt to unravel the interplay of these variables.
Although this study enrolled patients “who would be predicted to have the most benefit from a TG-lowering strategy,” Dr. Watson agreed that these results do not necessarily extend to other means of lowering TG. However, it might draw into question the value of pemafibrate and perhaps other drugs in this class for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In addition to a lack of CV benefit, treatment was not without risks, including a higher rate of thromboembolism and adverse renal events.
Dr. Das Pradhan reported financial relationships with Denka, Medtelligence, Optum, Novo Nordisk, and Kowa, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Esperion.
AT AHA 2022
AHA 2022 to recapture in-person vibe but preserve global reach
That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.
The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.
Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.
Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.
More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
LBS and FS highlights
“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”
Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.
They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.
Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.
Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.
STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.
Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.
Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.
Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.
The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.
Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.
Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim
The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.
The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.
This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.
The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.
Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.
Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.
More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
LBS and FS highlights
“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”
Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.
They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.
Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.
Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.
STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.
Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.
Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.
Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.
The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.
Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.
Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim
The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.
The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.
This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.
The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.
Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.
Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.
More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
LBS and FS highlights
“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”
Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.
They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.
Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.
Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.
STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.
Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.
Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.
Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.
The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.
Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.
Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim
The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.
The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.
This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ObesityWeek 2022: What’s stopping effective treatment of obesity?
ObesityWeek 2022 is the largest international conference on obesity, with over 100 sessions, and coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Obesity Society. Being held Nov. 1-4, it is a hybrid meeting that participants can attend onsite in sunny San Diego or virtually.
“The meeting offers a wide perspective, from basic science, all the way to public policy on studies of treatment and prevention of obesity,” program planning chair for ObesityWeek, Kelly C. Allison, PhD, said in an interview.
The Presidential Plenary session on Nov. 1 will kick off the meeting with “a series of 10-minute rapid talks on cutting-edge topics in the field,” noted Dr. Allison, who is also director, Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia.
Among others, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, will speak about “New developments in anti-obesity pharmacotherapy,” and Theodore K. Kyle, RPh, MBA, will discuss “Reducing barriers to treatment: Insurance coverage.”
“We’re seeing some pretty effective antiobesity medication, but still they are not being covered by many insurances,” said Dr. Allison. Some clinicians might be hesitant to prescribe antiobesity medications, remembering older drugs that were pulled from the market for health concerns, and some patients may also have concerns, she speculated. There is a need for greater education about the current antiobesity drugs.
In his presidential address, Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, will discuss “Regulation of body weight and adaptive responses to weight loss.”
Pediatric obesity is a major focus of this year›s conference too, Allison noted.
At 8 a.m on Nov. 3, The Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and Obesity Canada will present a joint symposium, “International innovations in pediatric obesity,” with speakers from Canada, Australia, and Ireland discussing ongoing paradigm shifts in the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity.
Two hours later, at a joint symposium by the American Academy of Pediatrics/The Obesity Society, attendees will get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the new AAP Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline for children and adolescents with obesity.
The conference tracks reflect the broad scope of this event: Track 1: Metabolism and Integrative Physiology; Track 2: Neuroscience; Track 3: Interventional and Clinical Studies; Track 4: Population Health; Track 5: Clinical/Professional Practice; Track 6: Policy/Public Health, and a subtrack: Eradicating Treatment Barriers.
Dr. Allison highlighted the following oral presentations and posters about antiobesity drugs:
- “Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in adolescents with overweight or obesity,” with an extended Q&A session, Nov. 2.
- “Clinical outcomes with medication use in tertiary pediatric weight management program,” by Enayet and colleagues. Poster 030.
- “The metabolically healthy obese paradigm and liver fat content in the Fels longitudinal study,” by Garza and colleagues Oral 055, Nov. 2.
- “Phase 3 clinical trial of metformin for treatment of COVID-19 in adults with overweight and obesity,” by Bramante and colleagues. Oral 067, Nov. 3. This trial was published in the (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:599-610).
- “Glucagon/GLP-1 receptor dual agonist BI 456906 reduces bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes,” by Rosenstock and colleagues. Oral-063, Nov. 3.
- “A randomized controlled trial of naltrexone and bupropion and behavior therapy for binge-eating disorder,” by Grilo and colleagues. Oral 066, Nov. 3.
And on Nov. 4, researchers will present four oral abstracts about the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which is approved for type 2 diabetes and now has fast track designation for weight loss from the Food and Drug Administration. Oral abstracts 109, 110, 111, and 112 cover weight loss with tirzepatide across different age groups, body mass indexes, and comorbidities, as well as quality of life.
Dr. Allison also highlighted the following presentations that cover other diverse topics:
- Family-based treatment: “Pilot study to inform a randomized controlled trial of HeLP: Obesity prevention & treatment for the entire Hispanic family,” by Haemer and colleagues. Oral 029. November 2.
- Bariatric surgery: “Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from 2010-2016: A nationwide cohort study,” Oral 014. Nov. 2.
- Prevention/public health: “Impact of positive and negative front-of-package food labels in a randomized experiment,” by Grummon and colleagues. Oral 068. Nov. 3.
- Time-restricted eating: “Effects of 8-hour time restricted eating for weight loss over 12 months,” by Gabel and colleagues. Oral 102. Nov. 4.
- Patient management: “Identifying interprofessional drivers of practice gaps in the management of patients with obesity,” by Robinson and colleagues. Poster 055.
On Nov. 4, researchers will present five winning papers that will be published in the December issue of the Obesity journal about GLP-1 agonists versus bariatric surgery; monoacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 1 in mice; a behavioral weight-loss intervention; the Canberra Obesity Management Service; and macronutrient (im)balance in an obesogenic environment.
“I’m always excited to hear some talks that are outside of my comfort area to understand the mechanisms of obesity better,” concluded Dr. Allison.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ObesityWeek 2022 is the largest international conference on obesity, with over 100 sessions, and coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Obesity Society. Being held Nov. 1-4, it is a hybrid meeting that participants can attend onsite in sunny San Diego or virtually.
“The meeting offers a wide perspective, from basic science, all the way to public policy on studies of treatment and prevention of obesity,” program planning chair for ObesityWeek, Kelly C. Allison, PhD, said in an interview.
The Presidential Plenary session on Nov. 1 will kick off the meeting with “a series of 10-minute rapid talks on cutting-edge topics in the field,” noted Dr. Allison, who is also director, Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia.
Among others, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, will speak about “New developments in anti-obesity pharmacotherapy,” and Theodore K. Kyle, RPh, MBA, will discuss “Reducing barriers to treatment: Insurance coverage.”
“We’re seeing some pretty effective antiobesity medication, but still they are not being covered by many insurances,” said Dr. Allison. Some clinicians might be hesitant to prescribe antiobesity medications, remembering older drugs that were pulled from the market for health concerns, and some patients may also have concerns, she speculated. There is a need for greater education about the current antiobesity drugs.
In his presidential address, Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, will discuss “Regulation of body weight and adaptive responses to weight loss.”
Pediatric obesity is a major focus of this year›s conference too, Allison noted.
At 8 a.m on Nov. 3, The Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and Obesity Canada will present a joint symposium, “International innovations in pediatric obesity,” with speakers from Canada, Australia, and Ireland discussing ongoing paradigm shifts in the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity.
Two hours later, at a joint symposium by the American Academy of Pediatrics/The Obesity Society, attendees will get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the new AAP Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline for children and adolescents with obesity.
The conference tracks reflect the broad scope of this event: Track 1: Metabolism and Integrative Physiology; Track 2: Neuroscience; Track 3: Interventional and Clinical Studies; Track 4: Population Health; Track 5: Clinical/Professional Practice; Track 6: Policy/Public Health, and a subtrack: Eradicating Treatment Barriers.
Dr. Allison highlighted the following oral presentations and posters about antiobesity drugs:
- “Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in adolescents with overweight or obesity,” with an extended Q&A session, Nov. 2.
- “Clinical outcomes with medication use in tertiary pediatric weight management program,” by Enayet and colleagues. Poster 030.
- “The metabolically healthy obese paradigm and liver fat content in the Fels longitudinal study,” by Garza and colleagues Oral 055, Nov. 2.
- “Phase 3 clinical trial of metformin for treatment of COVID-19 in adults with overweight and obesity,” by Bramante and colleagues. Oral 067, Nov. 3. This trial was published in the (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:599-610).
- “Glucagon/GLP-1 receptor dual agonist BI 456906 reduces bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes,” by Rosenstock and colleagues. Oral-063, Nov. 3.
- “A randomized controlled trial of naltrexone and bupropion and behavior therapy for binge-eating disorder,” by Grilo and colleagues. Oral 066, Nov. 3.
And on Nov. 4, researchers will present four oral abstracts about the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which is approved for type 2 diabetes and now has fast track designation for weight loss from the Food and Drug Administration. Oral abstracts 109, 110, 111, and 112 cover weight loss with tirzepatide across different age groups, body mass indexes, and comorbidities, as well as quality of life.
Dr. Allison also highlighted the following presentations that cover other diverse topics:
- Family-based treatment: “Pilot study to inform a randomized controlled trial of HeLP: Obesity prevention & treatment for the entire Hispanic family,” by Haemer and colleagues. Oral 029. November 2.
- Bariatric surgery: “Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from 2010-2016: A nationwide cohort study,” Oral 014. Nov. 2.
- Prevention/public health: “Impact of positive and negative front-of-package food labels in a randomized experiment,” by Grummon and colleagues. Oral 068. Nov. 3.
- Time-restricted eating: “Effects of 8-hour time restricted eating for weight loss over 12 months,” by Gabel and colleagues. Oral 102. Nov. 4.
- Patient management: “Identifying interprofessional drivers of practice gaps in the management of patients with obesity,” by Robinson and colleagues. Poster 055.
On Nov. 4, researchers will present five winning papers that will be published in the December issue of the Obesity journal about GLP-1 agonists versus bariatric surgery; monoacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 1 in mice; a behavioral weight-loss intervention; the Canberra Obesity Management Service; and macronutrient (im)balance in an obesogenic environment.
“I’m always excited to hear some talks that are outside of my comfort area to understand the mechanisms of obesity better,” concluded Dr. Allison.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ObesityWeek 2022 is the largest international conference on obesity, with over 100 sessions, and coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Obesity Society. Being held Nov. 1-4, it is a hybrid meeting that participants can attend onsite in sunny San Diego or virtually.
“The meeting offers a wide perspective, from basic science, all the way to public policy on studies of treatment and prevention of obesity,” program planning chair for ObesityWeek, Kelly C. Allison, PhD, said in an interview.
The Presidential Plenary session on Nov. 1 will kick off the meeting with “a series of 10-minute rapid talks on cutting-edge topics in the field,” noted Dr. Allison, who is also director, Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia.
Among others, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, will speak about “New developments in anti-obesity pharmacotherapy,” and Theodore K. Kyle, RPh, MBA, will discuss “Reducing barriers to treatment: Insurance coverage.”
“We’re seeing some pretty effective antiobesity medication, but still they are not being covered by many insurances,” said Dr. Allison. Some clinicians might be hesitant to prescribe antiobesity medications, remembering older drugs that were pulled from the market for health concerns, and some patients may also have concerns, she speculated. There is a need for greater education about the current antiobesity drugs.
In his presidential address, Dan Bessesen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, will discuss “Regulation of body weight and adaptive responses to weight loss.”
Pediatric obesity is a major focus of this year›s conference too, Allison noted.
At 8 a.m on Nov. 3, The Obesity Society, the World Obesity Federation, the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and Obesity Canada will present a joint symposium, “International innovations in pediatric obesity,” with speakers from Canada, Australia, and Ireland discussing ongoing paradigm shifts in the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity.
Two hours later, at a joint symposium by the American Academy of Pediatrics/The Obesity Society, attendees will get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the new AAP Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline for children and adolescents with obesity.
The conference tracks reflect the broad scope of this event: Track 1: Metabolism and Integrative Physiology; Track 2: Neuroscience; Track 3: Interventional and Clinical Studies; Track 4: Population Health; Track 5: Clinical/Professional Practice; Track 6: Policy/Public Health, and a subtrack: Eradicating Treatment Barriers.
Dr. Allison highlighted the following oral presentations and posters about antiobesity drugs:
- “Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in adolescents with overweight or obesity,” with an extended Q&A session, Nov. 2.
- “Clinical outcomes with medication use in tertiary pediatric weight management program,” by Enayet and colleagues. Poster 030.
- “The metabolically healthy obese paradigm and liver fat content in the Fels longitudinal study,” by Garza and colleagues Oral 055, Nov. 2.
- “Phase 3 clinical trial of metformin for treatment of COVID-19 in adults with overweight and obesity,” by Bramante and colleagues. Oral 067, Nov. 3. This trial was published in the (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:599-610).
- “Glucagon/GLP-1 receptor dual agonist BI 456906 reduces bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes,” by Rosenstock and colleagues. Oral-063, Nov. 3.
- “A randomized controlled trial of naltrexone and bupropion and behavior therapy for binge-eating disorder,” by Grilo and colleagues. Oral 066, Nov. 3.
And on Nov. 4, researchers will present four oral abstracts about the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which is approved for type 2 diabetes and now has fast track designation for weight loss from the Food and Drug Administration. Oral abstracts 109, 110, 111, and 112 cover weight loss with tirzepatide across different age groups, body mass indexes, and comorbidities, as well as quality of life.
Dr. Allison also highlighted the following presentations that cover other diverse topics:
- Family-based treatment: “Pilot study to inform a randomized controlled trial of HeLP: Obesity prevention & treatment for the entire Hispanic family,” by Haemer and colleagues. Oral 029. November 2.
- Bariatric surgery: “Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from 2010-2016: A nationwide cohort study,” Oral 014. Nov. 2.
- Prevention/public health: “Impact of positive and negative front-of-package food labels in a randomized experiment,” by Grummon and colleagues. Oral 068. Nov. 3.
- Time-restricted eating: “Effects of 8-hour time restricted eating for weight loss over 12 months,” by Gabel and colleagues. Oral 102. Nov. 4.
- Patient management: “Identifying interprofessional drivers of practice gaps in the management of patients with obesity,” by Robinson and colleagues. Poster 055.
On Nov. 4, researchers will present five winning papers that will be published in the December issue of the Obesity journal about GLP-1 agonists versus bariatric surgery; monoacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 1 in mice; a behavioral weight-loss intervention; the Canberra Obesity Management Service; and macronutrient (im)balance in an obesogenic environment.
“I’m always excited to hear some talks that are outside of my comfort area to understand the mechanisms of obesity better,” concluded Dr. Allison.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Diet high in plant omega-3s tied to better HF prognosis
Heart failure (HF) patients with high serum levels of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) had a better prognosis than those with the lowest levels, in an observational study.
ALA is an omega-3 fatty acid that is found mainly in plants, including flaxseed, chia, walnuts, or canola oil.
“The most striking finding to us is the clear difference between patients at the bottom quartile compared to the other 75%, pointing to a threshold on the putative effect of ALA, reinforcing the notion that ‘one size does not fill all,’ ” Aleix Sala-Vila, PharmD, PhD, of the Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, told this news organization.The analysis, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed statistically significant reductions in all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, and first HF hospitalization among those in the three upper quartiles of serum ALA levels, compared with those in the lowest quartile.
The team’s earlier finding that higher levels of serum phosphatidylcholine eicosapentaenoic acid (PC EPA) and ALA were associated with a lower risk of adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction prompted the current study, Dr. Sala-Vila said.
Although their findings are hypothesis-generating at this point, he added, “inclusion of some ALA-rich foods, such as walnuts, in the diet of any individual, whether they have HF or not, might translate into CV benefits, besides the putative effect on HF. There is no evidence of any deleterious effect of one daily serving of walnuts, not even on weight gain.”
Plant power
Dr. Sala-Vila and colleagues analyzed data and samples from 905 patients (mean age, 67; 32% women) with HF of different etiologies. ALA was assessed by gas chromatography in serum phospholipids, which reflect long-term dietary ALA intake and metabolism.
The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or first HF hospitalization. The secondary outcome was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization.
After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 140 all-cause deaths, 85 CV deaths, and 141 first HF hospitalizations occurred (composite of all-cause death and first HF hospitalization, 238; composite of CV death and HF hospitalization, 184).
Compared with patients at the lowest quartile of ALA in serum phospholipids, those at the three upper quartiles showed a 39% reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.61).
Statistically significant reductions also were observed for all-cause death (HR, 0.58), CV death (HR, 0.51), first HF hospitalization (HR, 0.58), and the composite of CV death and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.58).
By contrast, nonstatistically significant associations were seen for fish-derived EPA, DHA, and the sum of EPA + DHA.
Limitations of the study include its observational nature; a relatively young cohort with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction and stage 2 chronic kidney disease; and no dietary data except for those regarding fatty acids.
“Controversial results from landmark recent trials on omega-3 might have translated into confusion/negative impact on the reputation of these fatty acids,” Dr. Sala-Vila noted. “Many factors affect how each participant responds to a certain intervention (precision nutrition), such as genetics, the microbiome, and the environment. In this regard, nutritional status – omega-3 background – is emerging as a key determinant.”
Randomized trials needed
JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said the findings “are promising in the context of earlier research on omega-3s.”
Those studies include the landmark GISSI-HF trial, a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) that showed a small benefit of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids regarding hospital admissions and mortality among patients with chronic HF, and her team’s VITAL-HF study, which showed a significant reduction in recurrent HF hospitalization with marine omega-3 supplementation versus placebo.
“This may not be a causal association, and the authors acknowledge that they don’t have information on other dietary factors,” Dr. Manson said. “It may be that the foods that are leading to this higher blood level of ALA comprise the type of plant-based diet that’s been linked to lower risk of CVD, such as the Mediterranean diet. The findings also could be the result of other factors that aren’t fully controlled for in the analysis, or the participants could be more compliant with their medications.”
Nevertheless, she said, “it’s reasonable to recommend that people with a history of HF or who are at high risk of HF increase their intake of ALA-enriched foods, including canola oil, flaxseed oils, soybeans and soybean oils, and walnuts.”
“I think the evidence is promising enough that an RCT of ALA in people with heart failure also would be reasonable,” she added.
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Mohammad, MD, of Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, England, writes in a related editorial that while a potential role for ALA in improving morbidity and mortality in HF patients cannot be substantiated yet, the findings “open the field to more questions” for which “the judge and jury ... shall be prospective randomized controlled trials.”
No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heart failure (HF) patients with high serum levels of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) had a better prognosis than those with the lowest levels, in an observational study.
ALA is an omega-3 fatty acid that is found mainly in plants, including flaxseed, chia, walnuts, or canola oil.
“The most striking finding to us is the clear difference between patients at the bottom quartile compared to the other 75%, pointing to a threshold on the putative effect of ALA, reinforcing the notion that ‘one size does not fill all,’ ” Aleix Sala-Vila, PharmD, PhD, of the Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, told this news organization.The analysis, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed statistically significant reductions in all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, and first HF hospitalization among those in the three upper quartiles of serum ALA levels, compared with those in the lowest quartile.
The team’s earlier finding that higher levels of serum phosphatidylcholine eicosapentaenoic acid (PC EPA) and ALA were associated with a lower risk of adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction prompted the current study, Dr. Sala-Vila said.
Although their findings are hypothesis-generating at this point, he added, “inclusion of some ALA-rich foods, such as walnuts, in the diet of any individual, whether they have HF or not, might translate into CV benefits, besides the putative effect on HF. There is no evidence of any deleterious effect of one daily serving of walnuts, not even on weight gain.”
Plant power
Dr. Sala-Vila and colleagues analyzed data and samples from 905 patients (mean age, 67; 32% women) with HF of different etiologies. ALA was assessed by gas chromatography in serum phospholipids, which reflect long-term dietary ALA intake and metabolism.
The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or first HF hospitalization. The secondary outcome was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization.
After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 140 all-cause deaths, 85 CV deaths, and 141 first HF hospitalizations occurred (composite of all-cause death and first HF hospitalization, 238; composite of CV death and HF hospitalization, 184).
Compared with patients at the lowest quartile of ALA in serum phospholipids, those at the three upper quartiles showed a 39% reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.61).
Statistically significant reductions also were observed for all-cause death (HR, 0.58), CV death (HR, 0.51), first HF hospitalization (HR, 0.58), and the composite of CV death and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.58).
By contrast, nonstatistically significant associations were seen for fish-derived EPA, DHA, and the sum of EPA + DHA.
Limitations of the study include its observational nature; a relatively young cohort with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction and stage 2 chronic kidney disease; and no dietary data except for those regarding fatty acids.
“Controversial results from landmark recent trials on omega-3 might have translated into confusion/negative impact on the reputation of these fatty acids,” Dr. Sala-Vila noted. “Many factors affect how each participant responds to a certain intervention (precision nutrition), such as genetics, the microbiome, and the environment. In this regard, nutritional status – omega-3 background – is emerging as a key determinant.”
Randomized trials needed
JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said the findings “are promising in the context of earlier research on omega-3s.”
Those studies include the landmark GISSI-HF trial, a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) that showed a small benefit of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids regarding hospital admissions and mortality among patients with chronic HF, and her team’s VITAL-HF study, which showed a significant reduction in recurrent HF hospitalization with marine omega-3 supplementation versus placebo.
“This may not be a causal association, and the authors acknowledge that they don’t have information on other dietary factors,” Dr. Manson said. “It may be that the foods that are leading to this higher blood level of ALA comprise the type of plant-based diet that’s been linked to lower risk of CVD, such as the Mediterranean diet. The findings also could be the result of other factors that aren’t fully controlled for in the analysis, or the participants could be more compliant with their medications.”
Nevertheless, she said, “it’s reasonable to recommend that people with a history of HF or who are at high risk of HF increase their intake of ALA-enriched foods, including canola oil, flaxseed oils, soybeans and soybean oils, and walnuts.”
“I think the evidence is promising enough that an RCT of ALA in people with heart failure also would be reasonable,” she added.
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Mohammad, MD, of Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, England, writes in a related editorial that while a potential role for ALA in improving morbidity and mortality in HF patients cannot be substantiated yet, the findings “open the field to more questions” for which “the judge and jury ... shall be prospective randomized controlled trials.”
No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heart failure (HF) patients with high serum levels of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) had a better prognosis than those with the lowest levels, in an observational study.
ALA is an omega-3 fatty acid that is found mainly in plants, including flaxseed, chia, walnuts, or canola oil.
“The most striking finding to us is the clear difference between patients at the bottom quartile compared to the other 75%, pointing to a threshold on the putative effect of ALA, reinforcing the notion that ‘one size does not fill all,’ ” Aleix Sala-Vila, PharmD, PhD, of the Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, told this news organization.The analysis, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed statistically significant reductions in all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, and first HF hospitalization among those in the three upper quartiles of serum ALA levels, compared with those in the lowest quartile.
The team’s earlier finding that higher levels of serum phosphatidylcholine eicosapentaenoic acid (PC EPA) and ALA were associated with a lower risk of adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction prompted the current study, Dr. Sala-Vila said.
Although their findings are hypothesis-generating at this point, he added, “inclusion of some ALA-rich foods, such as walnuts, in the diet of any individual, whether they have HF or not, might translate into CV benefits, besides the putative effect on HF. There is no evidence of any deleterious effect of one daily serving of walnuts, not even on weight gain.”
Plant power
Dr. Sala-Vila and colleagues analyzed data and samples from 905 patients (mean age, 67; 32% women) with HF of different etiologies. ALA was assessed by gas chromatography in serum phospholipids, which reflect long-term dietary ALA intake and metabolism.
The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or first HF hospitalization. The secondary outcome was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization.
After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 140 all-cause deaths, 85 CV deaths, and 141 first HF hospitalizations occurred (composite of all-cause death and first HF hospitalization, 238; composite of CV death and HF hospitalization, 184).
Compared with patients at the lowest quartile of ALA in serum phospholipids, those at the three upper quartiles showed a 39% reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.61).
Statistically significant reductions also were observed for all-cause death (HR, 0.58), CV death (HR, 0.51), first HF hospitalization (HR, 0.58), and the composite of CV death and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.58).
By contrast, nonstatistically significant associations were seen for fish-derived EPA, DHA, and the sum of EPA + DHA.
Limitations of the study include its observational nature; a relatively young cohort with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction and stage 2 chronic kidney disease; and no dietary data except for those regarding fatty acids.
“Controversial results from landmark recent trials on omega-3 might have translated into confusion/negative impact on the reputation of these fatty acids,” Dr. Sala-Vila noted. “Many factors affect how each participant responds to a certain intervention (precision nutrition), such as genetics, the microbiome, and the environment. In this regard, nutritional status – omega-3 background – is emerging as a key determinant.”
Randomized trials needed
JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said the findings “are promising in the context of earlier research on omega-3s.”
Those studies include the landmark GISSI-HF trial, a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) that showed a small benefit of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids regarding hospital admissions and mortality among patients with chronic HF, and her team’s VITAL-HF study, which showed a significant reduction in recurrent HF hospitalization with marine omega-3 supplementation versus placebo.
“This may not be a causal association, and the authors acknowledge that they don’t have information on other dietary factors,” Dr. Manson said. “It may be that the foods that are leading to this higher blood level of ALA comprise the type of plant-based diet that’s been linked to lower risk of CVD, such as the Mediterranean diet. The findings also could be the result of other factors that aren’t fully controlled for in the analysis, or the participants could be more compliant with their medications.”
Nevertheless, she said, “it’s reasonable to recommend that people with a history of HF or who are at high risk of HF increase their intake of ALA-enriched foods, including canola oil, flaxseed oils, soybeans and soybean oils, and walnuts.”
“I think the evidence is promising enough that an RCT of ALA in people with heart failure also would be reasonable,” she added.
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Mohammad, MD, of Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, England, writes in a related editorial that while a potential role for ALA in improving morbidity and mortality in HF patients cannot be substantiated yet, the findings “open the field to more questions” for which “the judge and jury ... shall be prospective randomized controlled trials.”
No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Plant-based diet cut hot flashes 78%: WAVS study
Women eating a reduced-fat vegan diet combined with a daily serving of soybeans experienced a 78% reduction in frequency of menopausal hot flashes over 12 weeks, in a small, nonblinded, randomized-controlled trial.
“We do not fully understand yet why this combination works, but it seems that these three elements are key: avoiding animal products, reducing fat, and adding a serving of soybeans,” lead researcher Neal Barnard, MD, explained in a press release. “These new results suggest that a diet change should be considered as a first-line treatment for troublesome vasomotor symptoms, including night sweats and hot flashes,” added Dr. Barnard, who is president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and adjunct professor at George Washington University, Washington. 
But, while “the findings from this very small study complement everything we know about the benefits of an excellent diet and the health benefits of soy,” they should be interpreted with some caution, commented Susan Reed, MD, president of the North American Menopause Society, and associate program director of the women’s reproductive research program at the University of Washington, Seattle.
For the trial, called WAVS (Women’s Study for the Alleviation of Vasomotor Symptoms), the researchers randomized 84 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate to severe hot flashes daily to either the intervention or usual diet, with a total of 71 subjects completing the 12-week study, published in Menopause. Criteria for exclusion included any cause of vasomotor symptoms other than natural menopause, current use of a low-fat, vegan diet that includes daily soy products, soy allergy, and body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2.
Participants in the intervention group were asked to avoid animal-derived foods, minimize their use of oils and fatty foods such as nuts and avocados, and include half a cup (86 g) of cooked soybeans daily in their diets. They were also offered 1-hour virtual group meetings each week, in which a registered dietitian or research staff provided information on food preparation and managing common dietary challenges.
Control group participants were asked to continue their usual diets and attend four 1-hour group sessions.
At baseline and then after the 12-week study period, dietary intake was self-recorded for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, hot flash frequency and severity was recorded for 1 week using a mobile app, and the effect of menopausal symptoms on quality of life was measured using the vasomotor, psychosocial, physical, and sexual domains of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire.
Equol production was also assessed in a subset of 15 intervention and 12 control participants who had urinary isoflavone concentrations measured after eating half a cup (86 g) of soybeans twice daily for 3 days. This was based on the theory that diets such as the intervention in this study “seem to foster the growth of gut bacteria capable of converting daidzein to equol,” noted the authors. The ability to produce equol is detected more frequently in individuals following vegetarian diets than in omnivores and … has been proposed as a factor in soy’s apparent health benefits.”
The study found that total hot flash frequency decreased by 78% in the intervention group (P < .001) and 39% (P < .001) in the control group (between-group P = .003), and moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 88% versus 34%, respectively (from 5.0 to 0.6 per day, P < .001 vs. from 4.4 to 2.9 per day, P < .001; between-group P < .001). Among participants with at least seven moderate to severe hot flashes per day at baseline, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 93% (from 10.6 to 0.7 per day) in the intervention group (P < .001) and 36% (from 9.0 to 5.8 per day) in the control group (P = .01, between-group P < .001). The changes in hot flashes were paralleled by changes in the MENQOL findings, with significant between-group differences in the vasomotor (P = 0.004), physical (P = 0.01), and sexual (P = 0.03) domains.
Changes in frequency of severe hot flashes correlated directly with changes in fat intake, and inversely with changes in carbohydrate and fiber intake, such that “the greater the reduction in fat intake and the greater the increases in carbohydrate and fiber consumption, the greater the reduction in severe hot flashes,” noted the researchers. Mean body weight also decreased by 3.6 kg in the intervention group and 0.2 kg in the control group (P < .001). “Equol-production status had no apparent effect on hot flashes,” they added.
The study is the second phase of WAVS, which comprises two parts, the first of which showed similar results, but was conducted in the fall, raising questions about whether cooler temperatures were partly responsible for the results. Phase 2 of WAVS enrolled participants in the spring “ruling out the effect of outside temperature,” noted the authors.
“Eating a healthy diet at midlife is so important for long-term health and a sense of well-being for peri- and postmenopausal women,” said Dr Reed, but she urged caution in interpreting the findings. “This was an unblinded study,” she told this news organization. “Women were recruited to this study anticipating that they would be in a study on a soy diet. Individuals who sign up for a study are hoping for benefit from the intervention. The controls who don’t get the soy diet are often disappointed, so there is no benefit from a nonblinded control arm for their hot flashes. And that is exactly what we saw here. Blinded studies can hide what you are getting, so everyone in the study (intervention and controls) has the same anticipated benefit. But you cannot blind a soy diet.”
Dr. Reed also noted that, while the biologic mechanism of benefit should be equol production, this was not shown – given that both equol producers and nonproducers in the soy intervention reported marked symptom reduction.
“Only prior studies with estrogen interventions have observed reductions of hot flashes of the amount reported here,” she concluded. “Hopefully future large studies will clarify the role of soy diet for decreasing hot flashes.”
Dr. Barnard writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources. Dr. Reed has no relevant disclosures.
Women eating a reduced-fat vegan diet combined with a daily serving of soybeans experienced a 78% reduction in frequency of menopausal hot flashes over 12 weeks, in a small, nonblinded, randomized-controlled trial.
“We do not fully understand yet why this combination works, but it seems that these three elements are key: avoiding animal products, reducing fat, and adding a serving of soybeans,” lead researcher Neal Barnard, MD, explained in a press release. “These new results suggest that a diet change should be considered as a first-line treatment for troublesome vasomotor symptoms, including night sweats and hot flashes,” added Dr. Barnard, who is president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and adjunct professor at George Washington University, Washington.
But, while “the findings from this very small study complement everything we know about the benefits of an excellent diet and the health benefits of soy,” they should be interpreted with some caution, commented Susan Reed, MD, president of the North American Menopause Society, and associate program director of the women’s reproductive research program at the University of Washington, Seattle.
For the trial, called WAVS (Women’s Study for the Alleviation of Vasomotor Symptoms), the researchers randomized 84 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate to severe hot flashes daily to either the intervention or usual diet, with a total of 71 subjects completing the 12-week study, published in Menopause. Criteria for exclusion included any cause of vasomotor symptoms other than natural menopause, current use of a low-fat, vegan diet that includes daily soy products, soy allergy, and body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2.
Participants in the intervention group were asked to avoid animal-derived foods, minimize their use of oils and fatty foods such as nuts and avocados, and include half a cup (86 g) of cooked soybeans daily in their diets. They were also offered 1-hour virtual group meetings each week, in which a registered dietitian or research staff provided information on food preparation and managing common dietary challenges.
Control group participants were asked to continue their usual diets and attend four 1-hour group sessions.
At baseline and then after the 12-week study period, dietary intake was self-recorded for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, hot flash frequency and severity was recorded for 1 week using a mobile app, and the effect of menopausal symptoms on quality of life was measured using the vasomotor, psychosocial, physical, and sexual domains of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire.
Equol production was also assessed in a subset of 15 intervention and 12 control participants who had urinary isoflavone concentrations measured after eating half a cup (86 g) of soybeans twice daily for 3 days. This was based on the theory that diets such as the intervention in this study “seem to foster the growth of gut bacteria capable of converting daidzein to equol,” noted the authors. The ability to produce equol is detected more frequently in individuals following vegetarian diets than in omnivores and … has been proposed as a factor in soy’s apparent health benefits.”
The study found that total hot flash frequency decreased by 78% in the intervention group (P < .001) and 39% (P < .001) in the control group (between-group P = .003), and moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 88% versus 34%, respectively (from 5.0 to 0.6 per day, P < .001 vs. from 4.4 to 2.9 per day, P < .001; between-group P < .001). Among participants with at least seven moderate to severe hot flashes per day at baseline, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 93% (from 10.6 to 0.7 per day) in the intervention group (P < .001) and 36% (from 9.0 to 5.8 per day) in the control group (P = .01, between-group P < .001). The changes in hot flashes were paralleled by changes in the MENQOL findings, with significant between-group differences in the vasomotor (P = 0.004), physical (P = 0.01), and sexual (P = 0.03) domains.
Changes in frequency of severe hot flashes correlated directly with changes in fat intake, and inversely with changes in carbohydrate and fiber intake, such that “the greater the reduction in fat intake and the greater the increases in carbohydrate and fiber consumption, the greater the reduction in severe hot flashes,” noted the researchers. Mean body weight also decreased by 3.6 kg in the intervention group and 0.2 kg in the control group (P < .001). “Equol-production status had no apparent effect on hot flashes,” they added.
The study is the second phase of WAVS, which comprises two parts, the first of which showed similar results, but was conducted in the fall, raising questions about whether cooler temperatures were partly responsible for the results. Phase 2 of WAVS enrolled participants in the spring “ruling out the effect of outside temperature,” noted the authors.
“Eating a healthy diet at midlife is so important for long-term health and a sense of well-being for peri- and postmenopausal women,” said Dr Reed, but she urged caution in interpreting the findings. “This was an unblinded study,” she told this news organization. “Women were recruited to this study anticipating that they would be in a study on a soy diet. Individuals who sign up for a study are hoping for benefit from the intervention. The controls who don’t get the soy diet are often disappointed, so there is no benefit from a nonblinded control arm for their hot flashes. And that is exactly what we saw here. Blinded studies can hide what you are getting, so everyone in the study (intervention and controls) has the same anticipated benefit. But you cannot blind a soy diet.”
Dr. Reed also noted that, while the biologic mechanism of benefit should be equol production, this was not shown – given that both equol producers and nonproducers in the soy intervention reported marked symptom reduction.
“Only prior studies with estrogen interventions have observed reductions of hot flashes of the amount reported here,” she concluded. “Hopefully future large studies will clarify the role of soy diet for decreasing hot flashes.”
Dr. Barnard writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources. Dr. Reed has no relevant disclosures.
Women eating a reduced-fat vegan diet combined with a daily serving of soybeans experienced a 78% reduction in frequency of menopausal hot flashes over 12 weeks, in a small, nonblinded, randomized-controlled trial.
“We do not fully understand yet why this combination works, but it seems that these three elements are key: avoiding animal products, reducing fat, and adding a serving of soybeans,” lead researcher Neal Barnard, MD, explained in a press release. “These new results suggest that a diet change should be considered as a first-line treatment for troublesome vasomotor symptoms, including night sweats and hot flashes,” added Dr. Barnard, who is president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and adjunct professor at George Washington University, Washington.
But, while “the findings from this very small study complement everything we know about the benefits of an excellent diet and the health benefits of soy,” they should be interpreted with some caution, commented Susan Reed, MD, president of the North American Menopause Society, and associate program director of the women’s reproductive research program at the University of Washington, Seattle.
For the trial, called WAVS (Women’s Study for the Alleviation of Vasomotor Symptoms), the researchers randomized 84 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate to severe hot flashes daily to either the intervention or usual diet, with a total of 71 subjects completing the 12-week study, published in Menopause. Criteria for exclusion included any cause of vasomotor symptoms other than natural menopause, current use of a low-fat, vegan diet that includes daily soy products, soy allergy, and body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2.
Participants in the intervention group were asked to avoid animal-derived foods, minimize their use of oils and fatty foods such as nuts and avocados, and include half a cup (86 g) of cooked soybeans daily in their diets. They were also offered 1-hour virtual group meetings each week, in which a registered dietitian or research staff provided information on food preparation and managing common dietary challenges.
Control group participants were asked to continue their usual diets and attend four 1-hour group sessions.
At baseline and then after the 12-week study period, dietary intake was self-recorded for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, hot flash frequency and severity was recorded for 1 week using a mobile app, and the effect of menopausal symptoms on quality of life was measured using the vasomotor, psychosocial, physical, and sexual domains of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire.
Equol production was also assessed in a subset of 15 intervention and 12 control participants who had urinary isoflavone concentrations measured after eating half a cup (86 g) of soybeans twice daily for 3 days. This was based on the theory that diets such as the intervention in this study “seem to foster the growth of gut bacteria capable of converting daidzein to equol,” noted the authors. The ability to produce equol is detected more frequently in individuals following vegetarian diets than in omnivores and … has been proposed as a factor in soy’s apparent health benefits.”
The study found that total hot flash frequency decreased by 78% in the intervention group (P < .001) and 39% (P < .001) in the control group (between-group P = .003), and moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 88% versus 34%, respectively (from 5.0 to 0.6 per day, P < .001 vs. from 4.4 to 2.9 per day, P < .001; between-group P < .001). Among participants with at least seven moderate to severe hot flashes per day at baseline, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 93% (from 10.6 to 0.7 per day) in the intervention group (P < .001) and 36% (from 9.0 to 5.8 per day) in the control group (P = .01, between-group P < .001). The changes in hot flashes were paralleled by changes in the MENQOL findings, with significant between-group differences in the vasomotor (P = 0.004), physical (P = 0.01), and sexual (P = 0.03) domains.
Changes in frequency of severe hot flashes correlated directly with changes in fat intake, and inversely with changes in carbohydrate and fiber intake, such that “the greater the reduction in fat intake and the greater the increases in carbohydrate and fiber consumption, the greater the reduction in severe hot flashes,” noted the researchers. Mean body weight also decreased by 3.6 kg in the intervention group and 0.2 kg in the control group (P < .001). “Equol-production status had no apparent effect on hot flashes,” they added.
The study is the second phase of WAVS, which comprises two parts, the first of which showed similar results, but was conducted in the fall, raising questions about whether cooler temperatures were partly responsible for the results. Phase 2 of WAVS enrolled participants in the spring “ruling out the effect of outside temperature,” noted the authors.
“Eating a healthy diet at midlife is so important for long-term health and a sense of well-being for peri- and postmenopausal women,” said Dr Reed, but she urged caution in interpreting the findings. “This was an unblinded study,” she told this news organization. “Women were recruited to this study anticipating that they would be in a study on a soy diet. Individuals who sign up for a study are hoping for benefit from the intervention. The controls who don’t get the soy diet are often disappointed, so there is no benefit from a nonblinded control arm for their hot flashes. And that is exactly what we saw here. Blinded studies can hide what you are getting, so everyone in the study (intervention and controls) has the same anticipated benefit. But you cannot blind a soy diet.”
Dr. Reed also noted that, while the biologic mechanism of benefit should be equol production, this was not shown – given that both equol producers and nonproducers in the soy intervention reported marked symptom reduction.
“Only prior studies with estrogen interventions have observed reductions of hot flashes of the amount reported here,” she concluded. “Hopefully future large studies will clarify the role of soy diet for decreasing hot flashes.”
Dr. Barnard writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources. Dr. Reed has no relevant disclosures.
Vitamin D deficiency linked to death, new study finds
Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.
They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.
Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Unlike other types of observational studies, we have overcome some of the methodological obstacles. What is special about this new study is we were able to look at people with very low vitamin D concentrations and what would happen if their concentrations were a little bit higher. Most randomized controlled trials don’t show much of an effect. That’s because most people have sufficient concentrations. Ethically you can’t do a trial of people with very low levels without treating them,” senior author Elina Hypp
The data support the 50 nmol/L cut-off endorsed by the United States National Academy of Medicine and align with previous data suggesting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation is largely seen in people with deficiency.
“Everybody with vitamin D levels less than 50 nmol/L is recommended to increase their levels. Our results suggest there’s no need to go very high. The positive message is that if we are able to raise levels to just the current U.S. recommendations, that’s fine. There’s no need to use large supplement doses,” Dr. Hyppönen explained.
Thus, she advised, “Supplementation will clearly help, especially during wintertime or if a person isn’t getting enough vitamin D from the sun or in places where food isn’t fortified with vitamin D.”
But the data don’t support the approach of using large intermittent doses, she added.
“Sometimes doctors want to fix the deficiency quickly with a large ‘bolus’ dose, then continue with a maintenance dose. Increasing evidence suggests that’s not beneficial and might disturb the body’s metabolism so that it can’t get the amount it needs. It’s safe overall but might not work the way we want it to work.”
Rather, Dr. Hyppönen said, “My sense is that daily modest vitamin D dose supplementation when it’s needed is the best way forward.”
Genetic approach reveals causal relationship
The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.
Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.
The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0 and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.
During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D
The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.
With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).
Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.
Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.
And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.
Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.
Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.
The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.
They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.
Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Unlike other types of observational studies, we have overcome some of the methodological obstacles. What is special about this new study is we were able to look at people with very low vitamin D concentrations and what would happen if their concentrations were a little bit higher. Most randomized controlled trials don’t show much of an effect. That’s because most people have sufficient concentrations. Ethically you can’t do a trial of people with very low levels without treating them,” senior author Elina Hypp
The data support the 50 nmol/L cut-off endorsed by the United States National Academy of Medicine and align with previous data suggesting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation is largely seen in people with deficiency.
“Everybody with vitamin D levels less than 50 nmol/L is recommended to increase their levels. Our results suggest there’s no need to go very high. The positive message is that if we are able to raise levels to just the current U.S. recommendations, that’s fine. There’s no need to use large supplement doses,” Dr. Hyppönen explained.
Thus, she advised, “Supplementation will clearly help, especially during wintertime or if a person isn’t getting enough vitamin D from the sun or in places where food isn’t fortified with vitamin D.”
But the data don’t support the approach of using large intermittent doses, she added.
“Sometimes doctors want to fix the deficiency quickly with a large ‘bolus’ dose, then continue with a maintenance dose. Increasing evidence suggests that’s not beneficial and might disturb the body’s metabolism so that it can’t get the amount it needs. It’s safe overall but might not work the way we want it to work.”
Rather, Dr. Hyppönen said, “My sense is that daily modest vitamin D dose supplementation when it’s needed is the best way forward.”
Genetic approach reveals causal relationship
The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.
Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.
The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0 and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.
During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D
The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.
With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).
Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.
Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.
And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.
Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.
Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.
The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.
They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.
Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Unlike other types of observational studies, we have overcome some of the methodological obstacles. What is special about this new study is we were able to look at people with very low vitamin D concentrations and what would happen if their concentrations were a little bit higher. Most randomized controlled trials don’t show much of an effect. That’s because most people have sufficient concentrations. Ethically you can’t do a trial of people with very low levels without treating them,” senior author Elina Hypp
The data support the 50 nmol/L cut-off endorsed by the United States National Academy of Medicine and align with previous data suggesting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation is largely seen in people with deficiency.
“Everybody with vitamin D levels less than 50 nmol/L is recommended to increase their levels. Our results suggest there’s no need to go very high. The positive message is that if we are able to raise levels to just the current U.S. recommendations, that’s fine. There’s no need to use large supplement doses,” Dr. Hyppönen explained.
Thus, she advised, “Supplementation will clearly help, especially during wintertime or if a person isn’t getting enough vitamin D from the sun or in places where food isn’t fortified with vitamin D.”
But the data don’t support the approach of using large intermittent doses, she added.
“Sometimes doctors want to fix the deficiency quickly with a large ‘bolus’ dose, then continue with a maintenance dose. Increasing evidence suggests that’s not beneficial and might disturb the body’s metabolism so that it can’t get the amount it needs. It’s safe overall but might not work the way we want it to work.”
Rather, Dr. Hyppönen said, “My sense is that daily modest vitamin D dose supplementation when it’s needed is the best way forward.”
Genetic approach reveals causal relationship
The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.
Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.
The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0 and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.
During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D
The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.
With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).
Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.
Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.
And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.
Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.
Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.
The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
