User login
Data concerns mount despite ISCHEMIA substudy correction
A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.
Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.
As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.
The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.
Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.
Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.
For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).
The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.
The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.
“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”
Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.
She noted, as does the correction, that the data were correctly reported in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement.
Dr. Reynolds also said they’re in the process of preparing the data for “public sharing soon,” including the Duke Prognostic score at all levels. Dr. Reynolds had not responded by the time of this publication to a request for further details or a timeline.
The surgeons’ first letter to the editor was rejected because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters and was posted as a public comment April 18 via the research platform, Remarq.
Dr. Bakaeen said they were told their second letter was rejected because of Circulation’s “long standing policy” not to publish letters to the editor regarding manuscript corrections but that a correction is being issued.
Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said via email that the journal will update its online policies to more clearly state its requirements for publication and that it has been fully transparent with Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik regarding where it is in the current process.
He confirmed the surgeons were told June 1 that “after additional review, the authors have determined that whereas there are no errors, an additional minor correction is warranted to clarify the description of the study population and sample size. This correction will be published soon.”
Dr. Hill thanked Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik for bringing the matter to their attention and said, “It is also important to note that both updates to the Dr. Reynolds et al. paper are published as corrections. However, the results and conclusions of the paper remain unchanged.”
The bigger issue
Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.
The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.
Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.
“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”
Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.
Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.
“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”
ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”
He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.
“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”
Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”
“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”
“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.
Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.
As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.
The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.
Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.
Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.
For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).
The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.
The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.
“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”
Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.
She noted, as does the correction, that the data were correctly reported in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement.
Dr. Reynolds also said they’re in the process of preparing the data for “public sharing soon,” including the Duke Prognostic score at all levels. Dr. Reynolds had not responded by the time of this publication to a request for further details or a timeline.
The surgeons’ first letter to the editor was rejected because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters and was posted as a public comment April 18 via the research platform, Remarq.
Dr. Bakaeen said they were told their second letter was rejected because of Circulation’s “long standing policy” not to publish letters to the editor regarding manuscript corrections but that a correction is being issued.
Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said via email that the journal will update its online policies to more clearly state its requirements for publication and that it has been fully transparent with Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik regarding where it is in the current process.
He confirmed the surgeons were told June 1 that “after additional review, the authors have determined that whereas there are no errors, an additional minor correction is warranted to clarify the description of the study population and sample size. This correction will be published soon.”
Dr. Hill thanked Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik for bringing the matter to their attention and said, “It is also important to note that both updates to the Dr. Reynolds et al. paper are published as corrections. However, the results and conclusions of the paper remain unchanged.”
The bigger issue
Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.
The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.
Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.
“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”
Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.
Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.
“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”
ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”
He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.
“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”
Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”
“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”
“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.
Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.
As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.
The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.
Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.
Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.
For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).
The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.
The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.
“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”
Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.
She noted, as does the correction, that the data were correctly reported in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement.
Dr. Reynolds also said they’re in the process of preparing the data for “public sharing soon,” including the Duke Prognostic score at all levels. Dr. Reynolds had not responded by the time of this publication to a request for further details or a timeline.
The surgeons’ first letter to the editor was rejected because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters and was posted as a public comment April 18 via the research platform, Remarq.
Dr. Bakaeen said they were told their second letter was rejected because of Circulation’s “long standing policy” not to publish letters to the editor regarding manuscript corrections but that a correction is being issued.
Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said via email that the journal will update its online policies to more clearly state its requirements for publication and that it has been fully transparent with Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik regarding where it is in the current process.
He confirmed the surgeons were told June 1 that “after additional review, the authors have determined that whereas there are no errors, an additional minor correction is warranted to clarify the description of the study population and sample size. This correction will be published soon.”
Dr. Hill thanked Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik for bringing the matter to their attention and said, “It is also important to note that both updates to the Dr. Reynolds et al. paper are published as corrections. However, the results and conclusions of the paper remain unchanged.”
The bigger issue
Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.
The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.
Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.
“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”
Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.
Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.
“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”
ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”
He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.
“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”
Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”
“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”
“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CTO PCI success rates rising, with blip during COVID-19, registry shows
Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.
“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.
“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.
The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.
The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).
The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.
“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.
“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.
The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.
In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.
“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”
Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.
The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”
He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.
By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”
PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.
Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.
“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.
“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.
The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.
The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).
The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.
“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.
“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.
The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.
In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.
“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”
Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.
The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”
He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.
By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”
PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.
Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.
“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.
“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.
The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.
The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).
The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.
“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.
“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.
The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.
In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.
“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”
Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.
The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”
He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.
By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”
PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.
Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
FROM SCAI 2022
Antipsychotic tied to dose-related weight gain, higher cholesterol
new research suggests.
Investigators analyzed 1-year data for more than 400 patients who were taking risperidone and/or its metabolite paliperidone (Invega). Results showed increments of 1 mg of risperidone-equivalent doses were associated with an increase of 0.25% of weight within a year of follow-up.
“Although our findings report a positive and statistically significant dose-dependence of weight gain and cholesterol, both total and LDL [cholesterol], the size of the predicted changes of metabolic effects is clinically nonrelevant,” lead author Marianna Piras, PharmD, Centre for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview.
“Therefore, dose lowering would not have a beneficial effect on attenuating weight gain or cholesterol increases and could lead to psychiatric decompensation,” said Ms. Piras, who is also a PhD candidate in the unit of pharmacogenetics and clinical psychopharmacology at the University of Lausanne.
However, she added that because dose increments could increase risk for significant weight gain in the first month of treatment – the dose can be increased typically in a range of 1-10 grams – and strong dose increments could contribute to metabolic worsening over time, “risperidone minimum effective doses should be preferred.”
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
‘Serious public health issue’
Compared with the general population, patients with mental illness present with a greater prevalence of metabolic disorders. In addition, several psychotropic medications, including antipsychotics, can induce metabolic alterations such as weight gain, the investigators noted.
Antipsychotic-induced metabolic adverse effects “constitute a serious public health issue” because they are risk factors for cardiovascular diseases such as obesity and/or dyslipidemia, “which have been associated with a 10-year reduced life expectancy in the psychiatric population,” Ms. Piras said.
“The dose-dependence of metabolic adverse effects is a debated subject that needs to be assessed for each psychotropic drug known to induce weight gain,” she added.
Several previous studies have examined whether there is a dose-related effect of antipsychotics on metabolic parameters, “with some results suggesting that [weight gain] seems to develop even when low off-label doses are prescribed,” Ms. Piras noted.
She and her colleagues had already studied dose-related metabolic effects of quetiapine (Seroquel) and olanzapine (Zyprexa).
Risperidone is an antipsychotic with a “medium to high metabolic risk profile,” the researchers note, and few studies have examined the impact of risperidone on metabolic parameters other than weight gain.
For the current analysis, they analyzed data from a longitudinal study that included 438 patients (mean age, 40.7 years; 50.7% men) who started treatment with risperidone and/or paliperidone between 2007 and 2018.
The participants had diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, “other,” or “unknown.”
Clinical follow-up periods were up to a year, but were no shorter than 3 weeks. The investigators also assessed the data at different time intervals at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months “to appreciate the evolution of the metabolic parameters.”
In addition, they collected demographic and clinical information, such as comorbidities, and measured patients’ weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure, plasma glucose, and lipids at baseline and at 1, 3, and 12 months and then annually. Weight, waist circumference, and BP were also assessed at 2 and 6 months.
Doses of paliperidone were converted into risperidone-equivalent doses.
Significant weight gain over time
The mean duration of follow-up for the participants, of whom 374 were being treated with risperidone and 64 with paliperidone, was 153 days. Close to half (48.2%) were taking other psychotropic medications known to be associated with some degree of metabolic risk.
Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their daily dose intake (DDI): less than 3 mg/day (n = 201) and at least 3 mg/day (n = 237).
In the overall cohort, a “significant effect of time on weight change was found for each time point,” the investigators reported.
When the researchers looked at the changes according to DDI, they found that each 1-mg dose increase was associated with incremental weight gain at each time point.
Patients who had 5% or greater weight gain in the first month continued to gain weight more than patients who did not reach that threshold, leading the researchers to call that early threshold a “strong predictor of important weight gain in the long term.” There was a weight gain of 6.68% at 3 months, of 7.36% at 6 months, and of 7.7% at 12 months.
After the patients were stratified by age, there were differences in the effect of DDI on various age groups at different time points.
Dose was shown to have a significant effect on weight gain for women at all four time points (P ≥ .001), but for men only at 3 months (P = .003).
For each additional 1-mg dose, there was a 0.05 mmol/L (1.93 mg/dL) increase in total cholesterol (P = .018) after 1 year and a 0.04 mmol/L (1.54 mg/dL) increase in LDL cholesterol (P = .011).
There were no significant effects of time or DDI on triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, glucose levels, and systolic BP, and there was a negative effect of DDI on diastolic BP (P = .001).
The findings “provide evidence for a small dose effect of risperidone” on weight gain and total and LDL cholesterol levels, the investigators note.
Ms. Piras added that because each antipsychotic differs in its metabolic risk profile, “further analyses on other antipsychotics are ongoing in our laboratory, so far confirming our findings.”
Small increases, big changes
Commenting on the study, Erika Nurmi, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience, University of California, Los Angeles, said the study is “unique in the field.”
It “leverages real-world data from a large patient registry to ask a long-unanswered question: Are weight and metabolic adverse effects proportional to dose? Big data approaches like these are very powerful, given the large number of participants that can be included,” said Dr. Nurmi, who was not involved with the research.
However, she cautioned, the “biggest drawback [is that] these data are by nature much more complex and prone to confounding effects.”
In this case, a “critical confounder” for the study was that the majority of individuals taking higher risperidone doses were also taking other drugs known to cause weight gain, whereas the majority of those on lower risperidone doses were not. “This difference may explain the dose relationship observed,” she said.
Because real-world, big data are “valuable but also messy, conclusions drawn from them must be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Nurmi said.
She added that it is generally wise to use the lowest effective dose possible.
“Clinicians should appreciate that even small doses of antipsychotics can cause big changes in weight. Risks and benefits of medications must be carefully considered in clinical practice,” Dr. Nurmi said.
The research was funded in part by the Swiss National Research Foundation. Piras reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Nurmi reported no relevant financial relationships, but she is an unpaid member of the Tourette Association of America’s medical advisory board and of the Myriad Genetics scientific advisory board.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Investigators analyzed 1-year data for more than 400 patients who were taking risperidone and/or its metabolite paliperidone (Invega). Results showed increments of 1 mg of risperidone-equivalent doses were associated with an increase of 0.25% of weight within a year of follow-up.
“Although our findings report a positive and statistically significant dose-dependence of weight gain and cholesterol, both total and LDL [cholesterol], the size of the predicted changes of metabolic effects is clinically nonrelevant,” lead author Marianna Piras, PharmD, Centre for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview.
“Therefore, dose lowering would not have a beneficial effect on attenuating weight gain or cholesterol increases and could lead to psychiatric decompensation,” said Ms. Piras, who is also a PhD candidate in the unit of pharmacogenetics and clinical psychopharmacology at the University of Lausanne.
However, she added that because dose increments could increase risk for significant weight gain in the first month of treatment – the dose can be increased typically in a range of 1-10 grams – and strong dose increments could contribute to metabolic worsening over time, “risperidone minimum effective doses should be preferred.”
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
‘Serious public health issue’
Compared with the general population, patients with mental illness present with a greater prevalence of metabolic disorders. In addition, several psychotropic medications, including antipsychotics, can induce metabolic alterations such as weight gain, the investigators noted.
Antipsychotic-induced metabolic adverse effects “constitute a serious public health issue” because they are risk factors for cardiovascular diseases such as obesity and/or dyslipidemia, “which have been associated with a 10-year reduced life expectancy in the psychiatric population,” Ms. Piras said.
“The dose-dependence of metabolic adverse effects is a debated subject that needs to be assessed for each psychotropic drug known to induce weight gain,” she added.
Several previous studies have examined whether there is a dose-related effect of antipsychotics on metabolic parameters, “with some results suggesting that [weight gain] seems to develop even when low off-label doses are prescribed,” Ms. Piras noted.
She and her colleagues had already studied dose-related metabolic effects of quetiapine (Seroquel) and olanzapine (Zyprexa).
Risperidone is an antipsychotic with a “medium to high metabolic risk profile,” the researchers note, and few studies have examined the impact of risperidone on metabolic parameters other than weight gain.
For the current analysis, they analyzed data from a longitudinal study that included 438 patients (mean age, 40.7 years; 50.7% men) who started treatment with risperidone and/or paliperidone between 2007 and 2018.
The participants had diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, “other,” or “unknown.”
Clinical follow-up periods were up to a year, but were no shorter than 3 weeks. The investigators also assessed the data at different time intervals at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months “to appreciate the evolution of the metabolic parameters.”
In addition, they collected demographic and clinical information, such as comorbidities, and measured patients’ weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure, plasma glucose, and lipids at baseline and at 1, 3, and 12 months and then annually. Weight, waist circumference, and BP were also assessed at 2 and 6 months.
Doses of paliperidone were converted into risperidone-equivalent doses.
Significant weight gain over time
The mean duration of follow-up for the participants, of whom 374 were being treated with risperidone and 64 with paliperidone, was 153 days. Close to half (48.2%) were taking other psychotropic medications known to be associated with some degree of metabolic risk.
Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their daily dose intake (DDI): less than 3 mg/day (n = 201) and at least 3 mg/day (n = 237).
In the overall cohort, a “significant effect of time on weight change was found for each time point,” the investigators reported.
When the researchers looked at the changes according to DDI, they found that each 1-mg dose increase was associated with incremental weight gain at each time point.
Patients who had 5% or greater weight gain in the first month continued to gain weight more than patients who did not reach that threshold, leading the researchers to call that early threshold a “strong predictor of important weight gain in the long term.” There was a weight gain of 6.68% at 3 months, of 7.36% at 6 months, and of 7.7% at 12 months.
After the patients were stratified by age, there were differences in the effect of DDI on various age groups at different time points.
Dose was shown to have a significant effect on weight gain for women at all four time points (P ≥ .001), but for men only at 3 months (P = .003).
For each additional 1-mg dose, there was a 0.05 mmol/L (1.93 mg/dL) increase in total cholesterol (P = .018) after 1 year and a 0.04 mmol/L (1.54 mg/dL) increase in LDL cholesterol (P = .011).
There were no significant effects of time or DDI on triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, glucose levels, and systolic BP, and there was a negative effect of DDI on diastolic BP (P = .001).
The findings “provide evidence for a small dose effect of risperidone” on weight gain and total and LDL cholesterol levels, the investigators note.
Ms. Piras added that because each antipsychotic differs in its metabolic risk profile, “further analyses on other antipsychotics are ongoing in our laboratory, so far confirming our findings.”
Small increases, big changes
Commenting on the study, Erika Nurmi, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience, University of California, Los Angeles, said the study is “unique in the field.”
It “leverages real-world data from a large patient registry to ask a long-unanswered question: Are weight and metabolic adverse effects proportional to dose? Big data approaches like these are very powerful, given the large number of participants that can be included,” said Dr. Nurmi, who was not involved with the research.
However, she cautioned, the “biggest drawback [is that] these data are by nature much more complex and prone to confounding effects.”
In this case, a “critical confounder” for the study was that the majority of individuals taking higher risperidone doses were also taking other drugs known to cause weight gain, whereas the majority of those on lower risperidone doses were not. “This difference may explain the dose relationship observed,” she said.
Because real-world, big data are “valuable but also messy, conclusions drawn from them must be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Nurmi said.
She added that it is generally wise to use the lowest effective dose possible.
“Clinicians should appreciate that even small doses of antipsychotics can cause big changes in weight. Risks and benefits of medications must be carefully considered in clinical practice,” Dr. Nurmi said.
The research was funded in part by the Swiss National Research Foundation. Piras reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Nurmi reported no relevant financial relationships, but she is an unpaid member of the Tourette Association of America’s medical advisory board and of the Myriad Genetics scientific advisory board.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Investigators analyzed 1-year data for more than 400 patients who were taking risperidone and/or its metabolite paliperidone (Invega). Results showed increments of 1 mg of risperidone-equivalent doses were associated with an increase of 0.25% of weight within a year of follow-up.
“Although our findings report a positive and statistically significant dose-dependence of weight gain and cholesterol, both total and LDL [cholesterol], the size of the predicted changes of metabolic effects is clinically nonrelevant,” lead author Marianna Piras, PharmD, Centre for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview.
“Therefore, dose lowering would not have a beneficial effect on attenuating weight gain or cholesterol increases and could lead to psychiatric decompensation,” said Ms. Piras, who is also a PhD candidate in the unit of pharmacogenetics and clinical psychopharmacology at the University of Lausanne.
However, she added that because dose increments could increase risk for significant weight gain in the first month of treatment – the dose can be increased typically in a range of 1-10 grams – and strong dose increments could contribute to metabolic worsening over time, “risperidone minimum effective doses should be preferred.”
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
‘Serious public health issue’
Compared with the general population, patients with mental illness present with a greater prevalence of metabolic disorders. In addition, several psychotropic medications, including antipsychotics, can induce metabolic alterations such as weight gain, the investigators noted.
Antipsychotic-induced metabolic adverse effects “constitute a serious public health issue” because they are risk factors for cardiovascular diseases such as obesity and/or dyslipidemia, “which have been associated with a 10-year reduced life expectancy in the psychiatric population,” Ms. Piras said.
“The dose-dependence of metabolic adverse effects is a debated subject that needs to be assessed for each psychotropic drug known to induce weight gain,” she added.
Several previous studies have examined whether there is a dose-related effect of antipsychotics on metabolic parameters, “with some results suggesting that [weight gain] seems to develop even when low off-label doses are prescribed,” Ms. Piras noted.
She and her colleagues had already studied dose-related metabolic effects of quetiapine (Seroquel) and olanzapine (Zyprexa).
Risperidone is an antipsychotic with a “medium to high metabolic risk profile,” the researchers note, and few studies have examined the impact of risperidone on metabolic parameters other than weight gain.
For the current analysis, they analyzed data from a longitudinal study that included 438 patients (mean age, 40.7 years; 50.7% men) who started treatment with risperidone and/or paliperidone between 2007 and 2018.
The participants had diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, “other,” or “unknown.”
Clinical follow-up periods were up to a year, but were no shorter than 3 weeks. The investigators also assessed the data at different time intervals at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months “to appreciate the evolution of the metabolic parameters.”
In addition, they collected demographic and clinical information, such as comorbidities, and measured patients’ weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure, plasma glucose, and lipids at baseline and at 1, 3, and 12 months and then annually. Weight, waist circumference, and BP were also assessed at 2 and 6 months.
Doses of paliperidone were converted into risperidone-equivalent doses.
Significant weight gain over time
The mean duration of follow-up for the participants, of whom 374 were being treated with risperidone and 64 with paliperidone, was 153 days. Close to half (48.2%) were taking other psychotropic medications known to be associated with some degree of metabolic risk.
Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their daily dose intake (DDI): less than 3 mg/day (n = 201) and at least 3 mg/day (n = 237).
In the overall cohort, a “significant effect of time on weight change was found for each time point,” the investigators reported.
When the researchers looked at the changes according to DDI, they found that each 1-mg dose increase was associated with incremental weight gain at each time point.
Patients who had 5% or greater weight gain in the first month continued to gain weight more than patients who did not reach that threshold, leading the researchers to call that early threshold a “strong predictor of important weight gain in the long term.” There was a weight gain of 6.68% at 3 months, of 7.36% at 6 months, and of 7.7% at 12 months.
After the patients were stratified by age, there were differences in the effect of DDI on various age groups at different time points.
Dose was shown to have a significant effect on weight gain for women at all four time points (P ≥ .001), but for men only at 3 months (P = .003).
For each additional 1-mg dose, there was a 0.05 mmol/L (1.93 mg/dL) increase in total cholesterol (P = .018) after 1 year and a 0.04 mmol/L (1.54 mg/dL) increase in LDL cholesterol (P = .011).
There were no significant effects of time or DDI on triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, glucose levels, and systolic BP, and there was a negative effect of DDI on diastolic BP (P = .001).
The findings “provide evidence for a small dose effect of risperidone” on weight gain and total and LDL cholesterol levels, the investigators note.
Ms. Piras added that because each antipsychotic differs in its metabolic risk profile, “further analyses on other antipsychotics are ongoing in our laboratory, so far confirming our findings.”
Small increases, big changes
Commenting on the study, Erika Nurmi, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience, University of California, Los Angeles, said the study is “unique in the field.”
It “leverages real-world data from a large patient registry to ask a long-unanswered question: Are weight and metabolic adverse effects proportional to dose? Big data approaches like these are very powerful, given the large number of participants that can be included,” said Dr. Nurmi, who was not involved with the research.
However, she cautioned, the “biggest drawback [is that] these data are by nature much more complex and prone to confounding effects.”
In this case, a “critical confounder” for the study was that the majority of individuals taking higher risperidone doses were also taking other drugs known to cause weight gain, whereas the majority of those on lower risperidone doses were not. “This difference may explain the dose relationship observed,” she said.
Because real-world, big data are “valuable but also messy, conclusions drawn from them must be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Nurmi said.
She added that it is generally wise to use the lowest effective dose possible.
“Clinicians should appreciate that even small doses of antipsychotics can cause big changes in weight. Risks and benefits of medications must be carefully considered in clinical practice,” Dr. Nurmi said.
The research was funded in part by the Swiss National Research Foundation. Piras reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Nurmi reported no relevant financial relationships, but she is an unpaid member of the Tourette Association of America’s medical advisory board and of the Myriad Genetics scientific advisory board.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
Obesity in adolescence raises risk for adult type 1 diabetes
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.
These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.
The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.
The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”
Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”
Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’
In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.
“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.
Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people
The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.
The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.
Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.
After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.
Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.
Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
Hypotheses for mechanisms
The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.
The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.
“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.
Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.
And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”
Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.
These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.
The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.
The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”
Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”
Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’
In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.
“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.
Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people
The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.
The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.
Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.
After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.
Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.
Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
Hypotheses for mechanisms
The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.
The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.
“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.
Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.
And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”
Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.
These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.
The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.
The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”
Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”
Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’
In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.
“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.
Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people
The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.
The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.
Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.
After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.
Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.
Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
Hypotheses for mechanisms
The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.
The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.
“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.
Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.
And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”
Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.
AT ADA 2022
Tirzepatide powers ‘unprecedented’ weight loss in SURMOUNT-1
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of people with obesity but no diabetes with the dual–incretin agonist tirzepatide safely produced “unprecedented” levels of weight loss in the vast majority of patients in SURMOUNT-1, a placebo-controlled trial with more than 2,500 people with obesity or overweight plus at least one weight-related complication.
Although the pivotal trial did not directly compare weekly subcutaneous injection with the twincretin tirzepatide (at 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) with either bariatric surgery or what has been the reigning champ of weight-loss agents, a 2.4-mg/week injection of semaglutide (Wegovy), the new findings are impressive because they eclipsed semaglutide’s past performance in at least three important ways, said Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, SURMOUNT-1’s lead investigator, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
First, the highest-tested dosage of tirzepatide, 15 mg/week, for 72 weeks, produced a 5% or greater loss in baseline weight in 91%-96% of patients, an effect “not previously seen” in any prior phase 3 trial of a weight-loss agent, noted Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and director of Weight Management & Obesity Prevention at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Second, the average level of weight loss among the 630 people who received 15 mg/week was 22.5% in the on-treatment analysis, and 20.9% in the intention-to-treat analysis, again a magnitude of effect never before seen with any other medical intervention.
And in an exploratory analysis, 40% of people who received the highest-tested tirzepatide dose of 15 mg/week had at least a 25% loss in baseline weight in the on-treatment analysis, another example of unprecedented weight-loss achievement, said Dr. Jastreboff.
Looking at the data another way, the average baseline weight of those in the trial was 104 kg (230 lb) at the start, and the average weight loss was between 35 and 52 lbs by 72 weeks on treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said in a press conference.
She noted, however, that not everyone will respond to tirzepatide, “but if you do respond to this medicine, you will feel full earlier, you won’t want to go back for seconds, and you may eat smaller amounts more often.”
Such weight-loss agents will need to be taken chronically, in the same way that medications are for hypertension or dyslipidemia, Dr. Jastreboff stressed. “If you stop the antiobesity medication then the body fat mass set point will go back up so this necessitates long-term treatment.”
A new era: Weight loss ‘in the range of bariatric surgery’
Tirzepatide, developed by Lilly, has recently been approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, under the brand name Mounjaro.
SURMOUNT-1 was designed to examine the effect of the agent in overweight/obesity, and the company will be filing for the additional indication of weight loss in the future. Top-line results of SURMOUNT-1 generated much excitement when Lilly reported them back in April, including a story in The New York Times.
Semaglutide, a Novo Nordisk drug, is approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic at doses of either 1 mg or 2 mg per week) and also for weight loss, as Wegovy, at the higher dose of 2.4 mg per week. When Wegovy was given the green light by the Food and Drug Administration a year ago, it too was hailed as a “game changer” for obesity.
The weight-loss results seen in SURMOUNT-1 “put tirzepatide squarely in the range of weight loss achieved with bariatric surgery,” concluded Louis J. Aronne, MD, a coinvestigator on the trial, professor at Weill-Cornell Medicine in New York, and director of the Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Clinical Research of Weill-Cornell.
The results are “amazing,” and propel the weight-loss field into “a new era of obesity treatment,” commented Lee M. Kaplan, MD, who was not involved in the study and served as designated discussant for the trial.
Despite the lack of direct comparison, the findings indicate that “tirzepatide causes more weight loss than semaglutide,” and it provides “an opportunity to meet or exceed” the weight-loss effects of bariatric surgery, added Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Simultaneously with Dr. Jastreboff’s report at the meeting, the results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
An accompanying editorial agrees with Dr. Kaplan: “It is remarkable that the magnitude of weight loss with tirzepatide was similar to that with gastric bypass, which raises the potential for alternative medical approaches to the treatment of obesity.”
“The tides are shifting, and there are now more options for people with obesity to lose weight,” write Clifford J. Rosen, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, and Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dual incretin agonism ‘enhances activity,’ says expert
Tirzepatide is the first agent on the U.S. market from a novel class of dual-incretin agonists, with a molecular structure engineered to activate both the glucagonlike protein-1 (GLP-1) receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the two predominant incretins in the human gut. This combined activity has led to the twincretin nickname for tirzepatide.
Semaglutide is a single-incretin agonist, with its activity focused exclusively on the GLP-1 receptor.
Dr. Aronne tied the apparently superior efficacy of tirzepatide relative to semaglutide directly to the added incretin activity of tirzepatide. “The dual approach enhances efficacy,” he proposed during his presentation at the meeting.
The impressive efficacy and reassuring safety profile reported from SURMOUNT-1 opens the door to a new approach to treating obesity, which in the past has often taken a back seat to treatments for dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes.
“Now that we can treat obesity safely and effectively, it makes sense to treat obesity first,” Dr. Aronne recommended.
Dr. Jastreboff agreed: “Perhaps we can prevent diabetes by treating obesity head-on,” she remarked.
Weight-loss agents gain U.S. traction
There have been concerns about patient access to these newer weight-loss drugs in the United States, given that the retail cost of semaglutide for obesity exceeds $1,000/month, but Dr. Aronne reported data that painted a more optimistic picture.
His numbers showed that during the first months that semaglutide was on the U.S. market as a weight-loss agent, the number of U.S. prescriptions written for branded antiobesity medications roughly doubled, a spike that seemed mostly driven by the introduction and growing use of semaglutide.
With tirzepatide, every prespecified cardiometabolic parameter assessed in the trial showed clinically meaningful improvements, reported Dr. Jastreboff, including an average 17% reduction in waist circumference in patients on either of the highest two dosages, a 34% average drop in total fat mass, an average 0.5–percentage point cut in baseline hemoglobin A1c at the highest two dosages, substantial cuts in fasting plasma glucose and fasting insulin levels, an average 28% drop in triglyceride levels, and an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 8 mm Hg that occurred within 24 weeks on treatment.
“I think that insurers will sign up” for tirzepatide coverage based on benefits like this, Dr. Aronne predicted.
SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 patients with obesity or with overweight plus at least one weight-related complication at any of 119 sites in nine countries. They had a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or more, or 27 kg/m2 or more and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks, including a 20-week dose-escalation period.
The study’s two primary endpoints were the average percentage change in body weight from entry to 72 weeks, and the percentage of participants reaching at least a 5% reduction in their baseline body weight by 72 weeks.
The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and most were mild to moderate in severity, occurring primarily during dose escalation. Adverse events caused treatment discontinuation in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide doses and placebo, respectively
The trial ran from December 2019 to April 2022, so during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Jastreboff described as an “amazing feat.”
Jamy Ard, MD, who chaired the SURMOUNT-1 session quipped, after hearing the results, “Wow; that’s exciting. If you’re not excited by the results, you’d better check your pulse.”
Dr. Ard is a professor at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and codirector of the Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem.
SURMOUNT-1 was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an advisor or consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne has been a consultant or advisor to, speaker on behalf of, or received research funding from Eli Lilly as well as from Altimmune, Amgen, Allurion, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and United Health group; he has an ownership interest in ERX, Gelesis, and Intellihealth; and he serves on the board of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth. Dr. Kaplan has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Optum Health, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the Obesity and Nutrition Institute, and Xeno Biosciences. Dr. Ard has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Nestle Health Sciences and Novo Nordisk, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Epitomee, Medical, and United Health Group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of people with obesity but no diabetes with the dual–incretin agonist tirzepatide safely produced “unprecedented” levels of weight loss in the vast majority of patients in SURMOUNT-1, a placebo-controlled trial with more than 2,500 people with obesity or overweight plus at least one weight-related complication.
Although the pivotal trial did not directly compare weekly subcutaneous injection with the twincretin tirzepatide (at 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) with either bariatric surgery or what has been the reigning champ of weight-loss agents, a 2.4-mg/week injection of semaglutide (Wegovy), the new findings are impressive because they eclipsed semaglutide’s past performance in at least three important ways, said Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, SURMOUNT-1’s lead investigator, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
First, the highest-tested dosage of tirzepatide, 15 mg/week, for 72 weeks, produced a 5% or greater loss in baseline weight in 91%-96% of patients, an effect “not previously seen” in any prior phase 3 trial of a weight-loss agent, noted Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and director of Weight Management & Obesity Prevention at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Second, the average level of weight loss among the 630 people who received 15 mg/week was 22.5% in the on-treatment analysis, and 20.9% in the intention-to-treat analysis, again a magnitude of effect never before seen with any other medical intervention.
And in an exploratory analysis, 40% of people who received the highest-tested tirzepatide dose of 15 mg/week had at least a 25% loss in baseline weight in the on-treatment analysis, another example of unprecedented weight-loss achievement, said Dr. Jastreboff.
Looking at the data another way, the average baseline weight of those in the trial was 104 kg (230 lb) at the start, and the average weight loss was between 35 and 52 lbs by 72 weeks on treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said in a press conference.
She noted, however, that not everyone will respond to tirzepatide, “but if you do respond to this medicine, you will feel full earlier, you won’t want to go back for seconds, and you may eat smaller amounts more often.”
Such weight-loss agents will need to be taken chronically, in the same way that medications are for hypertension or dyslipidemia, Dr. Jastreboff stressed. “If you stop the antiobesity medication then the body fat mass set point will go back up so this necessitates long-term treatment.”
A new era: Weight loss ‘in the range of bariatric surgery’
Tirzepatide, developed by Lilly, has recently been approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, under the brand name Mounjaro.
SURMOUNT-1 was designed to examine the effect of the agent in overweight/obesity, and the company will be filing for the additional indication of weight loss in the future. Top-line results of SURMOUNT-1 generated much excitement when Lilly reported them back in April, including a story in The New York Times.
Semaglutide, a Novo Nordisk drug, is approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic at doses of either 1 mg or 2 mg per week) and also for weight loss, as Wegovy, at the higher dose of 2.4 mg per week. When Wegovy was given the green light by the Food and Drug Administration a year ago, it too was hailed as a “game changer” for obesity.
The weight-loss results seen in SURMOUNT-1 “put tirzepatide squarely in the range of weight loss achieved with bariatric surgery,” concluded Louis J. Aronne, MD, a coinvestigator on the trial, professor at Weill-Cornell Medicine in New York, and director of the Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Clinical Research of Weill-Cornell.
The results are “amazing,” and propel the weight-loss field into “a new era of obesity treatment,” commented Lee M. Kaplan, MD, who was not involved in the study and served as designated discussant for the trial.
Despite the lack of direct comparison, the findings indicate that “tirzepatide causes more weight loss than semaglutide,” and it provides “an opportunity to meet or exceed” the weight-loss effects of bariatric surgery, added Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Simultaneously with Dr. Jastreboff’s report at the meeting, the results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
An accompanying editorial agrees with Dr. Kaplan: “It is remarkable that the magnitude of weight loss with tirzepatide was similar to that with gastric bypass, which raises the potential for alternative medical approaches to the treatment of obesity.”
“The tides are shifting, and there are now more options for people with obesity to lose weight,” write Clifford J. Rosen, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, and Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dual incretin agonism ‘enhances activity,’ says expert
Tirzepatide is the first agent on the U.S. market from a novel class of dual-incretin agonists, with a molecular structure engineered to activate both the glucagonlike protein-1 (GLP-1) receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the two predominant incretins in the human gut. This combined activity has led to the twincretin nickname for tirzepatide.
Semaglutide is a single-incretin agonist, with its activity focused exclusively on the GLP-1 receptor.
Dr. Aronne tied the apparently superior efficacy of tirzepatide relative to semaglutide directly to the added incretin activity of tirzepatide. “The dual approach enhances efficacy,” he proposed during his presentation at the meeting.
The impressive efficacy and reassuring safety profile reported from SURMOUNT-1 opens the door to a new approach to treating obesity, which in the past has often taken a back seat to treatments for dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes.
“Now that we can treat obesity safely and effectively, it makes sense to treat obesity first,” Dr. Aronne recommended.
Dr. Jastreboff agreed: “Perhaps we can prevent diabetes by treating obesity head-on,” she remarked.
Weight-loss agents gain U.S. traction
There have been concerns about patient access to these newer weight-loss drugs in the United States, given that the retail cost of semaglutide for obesity exceeds $1,000/month, but Dr. Aronne reported data that painted a more optimistic picture.
His numbers showed that during the first months that semaglutide was on the U.S. market as a weight-loss agent, the number of U.S. prescriptions written for branded antiobesity medications roughly doubled, a spike that seemed mostly driven by the introduction and growing use of semaglutide.
With tirzepatide, every prespecified cardiometabolic parameter assessed in the trial showed clinically meaningful improvements, reported Dr. Jastreboff, including an average 17% reduction in waist circumference in patients on either of the highest two dosages, a 34% average drop in total fat mass, an average 0.5–percentage point cut in baseline hemoglobin A1c at the highest two dosages, substantial cuts in fasting plasma glucose and fasting insulin levels, an average 28% drop in triglyceride levels, and an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 8 mm Hg that occurred within 24 weeks on treatment.
“I think that insurers will sign up” for tirzepatide coverage based on benefits like this, Dr. Aronne predicted.
SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 patients with obesity or with overweight plus at least one weight-related complication at any of 119 sites in nine countries. They had a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or more, or 27 kg/m2 or more and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks, including a 20-week dose-escalation period.
The study’s two primary endpoints were the average percentage change in body weight from entry to 72 weeks, and the percentage of participants reaching at least a 5% reduction in their baseline body weight by 72 weeks.
The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and most were mild to moderate in severity, occurring primarily during dose escalation. Adverse events caused treatment discontinuation in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide doses and placebo, respectively
The trial ran from December 2019 to April 2022, so during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Jastreboff described as an “amazing feat.”
Jamy Ard, MD, who chaired the SURMOUNT-1 session quipped, after hearing the results, “Wow; that’s exciting. If you’re not excited by the results, you’d better check your pulse.”
Dr. Ard is a professor at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and codirector of the Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem.
SURMOUNT-1 was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an advisor or consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne has been a consultant or advisor to, speaker on behalf of, or received research funding from Eli Lilly as well as from Altimmune, Amgen, Allurion, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and United Health group; he has an ownership interest in ERX, Gelesis, and Intellihealth; and he serves on the board of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth. Dr. Kaplan has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Optum Health, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the Obesity and Nutrition Institute, and Xeno Biosciences. Dr. Ard has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Nestle Health Sciences and Novo Nordisk, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Epitomee, Medical, and United Health Group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of people with obesity but no diabetes with the dual–incretin agonist tirzepatide safely produced “unprecedented” levels of weight loss in the vast majority of patients in SURMOUNT-1, a placebo-controlled trial with more than 2,500 people with obesity or overweight plus at least one weight-related complication.
Although the pivotal trial did not directly compare weekly subcutaneous injection with the twincretin tirzepatide (at 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) with either bariatric surgery or what has been the reigning champ of weight-loss agents, a 2.4-mg/week injection of semaglutide (Wegovy), the new findings are impressive because they eclipsed semaglutide’s past performance in at least three important ways, said Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, SURMOUNT-1’s lead investigator, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
First, the highest-tested dosage of tirzepatide, 15 mg/week, for 72 weeks, produced a 5% or greater loss in baseline weight in 91%-96% of patients, an effect “not previously seen” in any prior phase 3 trial of a weight-loss agent, noted Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and director of Weight Management & Obesity Prevention at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Second, the average level of weight loss among the 630 people who received 15 mg/week was 22.5% in the on-treatment analysis, and 20.9% in the intention-to-treat analysis, again a magnitude of effect never before seen with any other medical intervention.
And in an exploratory analysis, 40% of people who received the highest-tested tirzepatide dose of 15 mg/week had at least a 25% loss in baseline weight in the on-treatment analysis, another example of unprecedented weight-loss achievement, said Dr. Jastreboff.
Looking at the data another way, the average baseline weight of those in the trial was 104 kg (230 lb) at the start, and the average weight loss was between 35 and 52 lbs by 72 weeks on treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said in a press conference.
She noted, however, that not everyone will respond to tirzepatide, “but if you do respond to this medicine, you will feel full earlier, you won’t want to go back for seconds, and you may eat smaller amounts more often.”
Such weight-loss agents will need to be taken chronically, in the same way that medications are for hypertension or dyslipidemia, Dr. Jastreboff stressed. “If you stop the antiobesity medication then the body fat mass set point will go back up so this necessitates long-term treatment.”
A new era: Weight loss ‘in the range of bariatric surgery’
Tirzepatide, developed by Lilly, has recently been approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, under the brand name Mounjaro.
SURMOUNT-1 was designed to examine the effect of the agent in overweight/obesity, and the company will be filing for the additional indication of weight loss in the future. Top-line results of SURMOUNT-1 generated much excitement when Lilly reported them back in April, including a story in The New York Times.
Semaglutide, a Novo Nordisk drug, is approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic at doses of either 1 mg or 2 mg per week) and also for weight loss, as Wegovy, at the higher dose of 2.4 mg per week. When Wegovy was given the green light by the Food and Drug Administration a year ago, it too was hailed as a “game changer” for obesity.
The weight-loss results seen in SURMOUNT-1 “put tirzepatide squarely in the range of weight loss achieved with bariatric surgery,” concluded Louis J. Aronne, MD, a coinvestigator on the trial, professor at Weill-Cornell Medicine in New York, and director of the Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Clinical Research of Weill-Cornell.
The results are “amazing,” and propel the weight-loss field into “a new era of obesity treatment,” commented Lee M. Kaplan, MD, who was not involved in the study and served as designated discussant for the trial.
Despite the lack of direct comparison, the findings indicate that “tirzepatide causes more weight loss than semaglutide,” and it provides “an opportunity to meet or exceed” the weight-loss effects of bariatric surgery, added Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Simultaneously with Dr. Jastreboff’s report at the meeting, the results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
An accompanying editorial agrees with Dr. Kaplan: “It is remarkable that the magnitude of weight loss with tirzepatide was similar to that with gastric bypass, which raises the potential for alternative medical approaches to the treatment of obesity.”
“The tides are shifting, and there are now more options for people with obesity to lose weight,” write Clifford J. Rosen, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, and Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dual incretin agonism ‘enhances activity,’ says expert
Tirzepatide is the first agent on the U.S. market from a novel class of dual-incretin agonists, with a molecular structure engineered to activate both the glucagonlike protein-1 (GLP-1) receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the two predominant incretins in the human gut. This combined activity has led to the twincretin nickname for tirzepatide.
Semaglutide is a single-incretin agonist, with its activity focused exclusively on the GLP-1 receptor.
Dr. Aronne tied the apparently superior efficacy of tirzepatide relative to semaglutide directly to the added incretin activity of tirzepatide. “The dual approach enhances efficacy,” he proposed during his presentation at the meeting.
The impressive efficacy and reassuring safety profile reported from SURMOUNT-1 opens the door to a new approach to treating obesity, which in the past has often taken a back seat to treatments for dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes.
“Now that we can treat obesity safely and effectively, it makes sense to treat obesity first,” Dr. Aronne recommended.
Dr. Jastreboff agreed: “Perhaps we can prevent diabetes by treating obesity head-on,” she remarked.
Weight-loss agents gain U.S. traction
There have been concerns about patient access to these newer weight-loss drugs in the United States, given that the retail cost of semaglutide for obesity exceeds $1,000/month, but Dr. Aronne reported data that painted a more optimistic picture.
His numbers showed that during the first months that semaglutide was on the U.S. market as a weight-loss agent, the number of U.S. prescriptions written for branded antiobesity medications roughly doubled, a spike that seemed mostly driven by the introduction and growing use of semaglutide.
With tirzepatide, every prespecified cardiometabolic parameter assessed in the trial showed clinically meaningful improvements, reported Dr. Jastreboff, including an average 17% reduction in waist circumference in patients on either of the highest two dosages, a 34% average drop in total fat mass, an average 0.5–percentage point cut in baseline hemoglobin A1c at the highest two dosages, substantial cuts in fasting plasma glucose and fasting insulin levels, an average 28% drop in triglyceride levels, and an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 8 mm Hg that occurred within 24 weeks on treatment.
“I think that insurers will sign up” for tirzepatide coverage based on benefits like this, Dr. Aronne predicted.
SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 patients with obesity or with overweight plus at least one weight-related complication at any of 119 sites in nine countries. They had a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or more, or 27 kg/m2 or more and at least one weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly, subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks, including a 20-week dose-escalation period.
The study’s two primary endpoints were the average percentage change in body weight from entry to 72 weeks, and the percentage of participants reaching at least a 5% reduction in their baseline body weight by 72 weeks.
The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and most were mild to moderate in severity, occurring primarily during dose escalation. Adverse events caused treatment discontinuation in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide doses and placebo, respectively
The trial ran from December 2019 to April 2022, so during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Jastreboff described as an “amazing feat.”
Jamy Ard, MD, who chaired the SURMOUNT-1 session quipped, after hearing the results, “Wow; that’s exciting. If you’re not excited by the results, you’d better check your pulse.”
Dr. Ard is a professor at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and codirector of the Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem.
SURMOUNT-1 was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an advisor or consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne has been a consultant or advisor to, speaker on behalf of, or received research funding from Eli Lilly as well as from Altimmune, Amgen, Allurion, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and United Health group; he has an ownership interest in ERX, Gelesis, and Intellihealth; and he serves on the board of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth. Dr. Kaplan has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Optum Health, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the Obesity and Nutrition Institute, and Xeno Biosciences. Dr. Ard has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Nestle Health Sciences and Novo Nordisk, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Epitomee, Medical, and United Health Group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2022
Will tirzepatide slow kidney function decline in type 2 diabetes?
The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.
“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.
Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
40% reduced risk of kidney function decline
The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.
Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).
“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).
“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.
The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.
“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”
Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).
“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.
“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.
Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria
One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.
The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.
Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).
The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:
- Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
- Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.
During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.
In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.
Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.
Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.
Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.
“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.
Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
40% reduced risk of kidney function decline
The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.
Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).
“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).
“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.
The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.
“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”
Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).
“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.
“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.
Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria
One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.
The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.
Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).
The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:
- Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
- Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.
During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.
In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.
Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.
Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.
Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.
“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.
Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
40% reduced risk of kidney function decline
The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.
Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).
“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).
“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.
The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.
“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”
Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).
“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.
“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.
Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria
One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.
The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.
Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).
The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:
- Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
- Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.
During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.
In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.
Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.
Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.
Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADA 2022
Omega-3 supplement sweet spot found for BP reduction
A meta-analysis of 71 randomized controlled trials has found the sweet spot for omega-3 fatty acid intake for lowering blood pressure: between 2 and 3 g/day. The investigators also reported that people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease may benefit from higher daily intake of omega-3.
The study analyzed data from randomized controlled trials involving 4,973 individuals and published from 1987 to 2020. Most of the trials used a combined supplementation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Outcomes analysis involved the impact of combined DHA-EPA at 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 grams daily on average changes in both systolic and diastolic BP and compared them with the placebo or control groups who had a combined intake of 0 g/day.
“We found a significant nonlinear dose-response relationship for both SBP and DBP models,” wrote senior author Xinzhi Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Li is program director of the school of pharmacy at Macau University of Science and Technology in Taipa, China.
Most of the trials included in the meta-analysis evaluated fish oil supplements, but a number also included EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids consumed in food.
When the investigators analyzed studies that used an average baseline SBP of greater than 130 mm Hg, they found that increasing omega-3 supplementation resulted in strong reductions in SBP and DBP, but not so with people with baseline SBP below 130 mm Hg.
Across the entire cohort, average SBP and DBP changes averaged –2.61 (95% confidence interval, –3.57 to –1.65) and –1.64 (95% CI, –2.29 to –0.99) mm Hg for people taking 2 g/d omega-3 supplements, and –2.61 (95% CI, –3.52 to –1.69) and –1.80 (95% CI, –2.38 to –1.23) for those on 3 g/d. The changes weren’t as robust in higher and lower intake groups overall.
However, the higher the BP, the more robust the reductions. For those with SBP greater than 130 mm Hg, 3 g/d resulted in an average change of –3.22 mm Hg (95% CI, –5.21 to –1.23). In the greater than 80 mm Hg DBP group, 3 g/d of omega-3 resulted in an average –3.81 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, –4.48 to –1.87). In patients with BP greater than 140/90 and hypertension, the reductions were even more pronounced. And in patients with BP greater than 130/80, omega-3 intake of 4-5 g/d had a greater impact than 2-3 g/d, although that benefit didn’t carry over in the greater than 140/90 group.
High cholesterol was also a factor in determining the benefits of omega-3 supplementation on BP, as Dr. Li and colleagues wrote that they found “an approximately linear relationship” between hyperlipidemia and SBP, “suggesting that increasing supplementation was associated with greater reductions in SBP.” Likewise, the study found stronger effects on BP in studies with an average patient age greater than 45 years.
In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued an update that consuming combined EPA and DHA may lower BP in the general population and reduce the risk of hypertension, but that “the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive.”
“However, while our study may add a layer of credible evidence, it does not meet the threshold to make an authorized health claim for omega-3 fatty acids in compliance with FDA regulations,” Dr. Li said.
The study addresses shortcomings of previous studies of omega-3 and BP and by identifying the optimal dose, Marc George, MRCP, PhD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College, London, and Ajay Gupta, MD, PhD, of the William Harvey Research Institute at Queen Mary University, London, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “More importantly, they have demonstrated a significantly stronger and increased BP-lowering effect in higher cardiovascular risk groups, such as those with hypertension or hyperlipidemia.”
They also noted that the 2.61–mm Hg reduction in SBP the study reported is “likely to be significant” on a population level. “A 2–mm Hg reduction in SBP is estimated to reduce stroke mortality by 10% and deaths from ischemic heart disease by 7%,” they wrote. “Expressed another way, an analysis in the U.S. population using 2010 data estimates that a population-wide reduction in SBP of 2 mm Hg in those aged 45- 64 years would translate to 30,045 fewer cardiovascular events ([coronary heart disease], stroke, and heart failure).”
The investigators and editorialists have no disclosures.
A meta-analysis of 71 randomized controlled trials has found the sweet spot for omega-3 fatty acid intake for lowering blood pressure: between 2 and 3 g/day. The investigators also reported that people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease may benefit from higher daily intake of omega-3.
The study analyzed data from randomized controlled trials involving 4,973 individuals and published from 1987 to 2020. Most of the trials used a combined supplementation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Outcomes analysis involved the impact of combined DHA-EPA at 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 grams daily on average changes in both systolic and diastolic BP and compared them with the placebo or control groups who had a combined intake of 0 g/day.
“We found a significant nonlinear dose-response relationship for both SBP and DBP models,” wrote senior author Xinzhi Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Li is program director of the school of pharmacy at Macau University of Science and Technology in Taipa, China.
Most of the trials included in the meta-analysis evaluated fish oil supplements, but a number also included EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids consumed in food.
When the investigators analyzed studies that used an average baseline SBP of greater than 130 mm Hg, they found that increasing omega-3 supplementation resulted in strong reductions in SBP and DBP, but not so with people with baseline SBP below 130 mm Hg.
Across the entire cohort, average SBP and DBP changes averaged –2.61 (95% confidence interval, –3.57 to –1.65) and –1.64 (95% CI, –2.29 to –0.99) mm Hg for people taking 2 g/d omega-3 supplements, and –2.61 (95% CI, –3.52 to –1.69) and –1.80 (95% CI, –2.38 to –1.23) for those on 3 g/d. The changes weren’t as robust in higher and lower intake groups overall.
However, the higher the BP, the more robust the reductions. For those with SBP greater than 130 mm Hg, 3 g/d resulted in an average change of –3.22 mm Hg (95% CI, –5.21 to –1.23). In the greater than 80 mm Hg DBP group, 3 g/d of omega-3 resulted in an average –3.81 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, –4.48 to –1.87). In patients with BP greater than 140/90 and hypertension, the reductions were even more pronounced. And in patients with BP greater than 130/80, omega-3 intake of 4-5 g/d had a greater impact than 2-3 g/d, although that benefit didn’t carry over in the greater than 140/90 group.
High cholesterol was also a factor in determining the benefits of omega-3 supplementation on BP, as Dr. Li and colleagues wrote that they found “an approximately linear relationship” between hyperlipidemia and SBP, “suggesting that increasing supplementation was associated with greater reductions in SBP.” Likewise, the study found stronger effects on BP in studies with an average patient age greater than 45 years.
In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued an update that consuming combined EPA and DHA may lower BP in the general population and reduce the risk of hypertension, but that “the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive.”
“However, while our study may add a layer of credible evidence, it does not meet the threshold to make an authorized health claim for omega-3 fatty acids in compliance with FDA regulations,” Dr. Li said.
The study addresses shortcomings of previous studies of omega-3 and BP and by identifying the optimal dose, Marc George, MRCP, PhD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College, London, and Ajay Gupta, MD, PhD, of the William Harvey Research Institute at Queen Mary University, London, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “More importantly, they have demonstrated a significantly stronger and increased BP-lowering effect in higher cardiovascular risk groups, such as those with hypertension or hyperlipidemia.”
They also noted that the 2.61–mm Hg reduction in SBP the study reported is “likely to be significant” on a population level. “A 2–mm Hg reduction in SBP is estimated to reduce stroke mortality by 10% and deaths from ischemic heart disease by 7%,” they wrote. “Expressed another way, an analysis in the U.S. population using 2010 data estimates that a population-wide reduction in SBP of 2 mm Hg in those aged 45- 64 years would translate to 30,045 fewer cardiovascular events ([coronary heart disease], stroke, and heart failure).”
The investigators and editorialists have no disclosures.
A meta-analysis of 71 randomized controlled trials has found the sweet spot for omega-3 fatty acid intake for lowering blood pressure: between 2 and 3 g/day. The investigators also reported that people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease may benefit from higher daily intake of omega-3.
The study analyzed data from randomized controlled trials involving 4,973 individuals and published from 1987 to 2020. Most of the trials used a combined supplementation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Outcomes analysis involved the impact of combined DHA-EPA at 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 grams daily on average changes in both systolic and diastolic BP and compared them with the placebo or control groups who had a combined intake of 0 g/day.
“We found a significant nonlinear dose-response relationship for both SBP and DBP models,” wrote senior author Xinzhi Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Li is program director of the school of pharmacy at Macau University of Science and Technology in Taipa, China.
Most of the trials included in the meta-analysis evaluated fish oil supplements, but a number also included EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids consumed in food.
When the investigators analyzed studies that used an average baseline SBP of greater than 130 mm Hg, they found that increasing omega-3 supplementation resulted in strong reductions in SBP and DBP, but not so with people with baseline SBP below 130 mm Hg.
Across the entire cohort, average SBP and DBP changes averaged –2.61 (95% confidence interval, –3.57 to –1.65) and –1.64 (95% CI, –2.29 to –0.99) mm Hg for people taking 2 g/d omega-3 supplements, and –2.61 (95% CI, –3.52 to –1.69) and –1.80 (95% CI, –2.38 to –1.23) for those on 3 g/d. The changes weren’t as robust in higher and lower intake groups overall.
However, the higher the BP, the more robust the reductions. For those with SBP greater than 130 mm Hg, 3 g/d resulted in an average change of –3.22 mm Hg (95% CI, –5.21 to –1.23). In the greater than 80 mm Hg DBP group, 3 g/d of omega-3 resulted in an average –3.81 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, –4.48 to –1.87). In patients with BP greater than 140/90 and hypertension, the reductions were even more pronounced. And in patients with BP greater than 130/80, omega-3 intake of 4-5 g/d had a greater impact than 2-3 g/d, although that benefit didn’t carry over in the greater than 140/90 group.
High cholesterol was also a factor in determining the benefits of omega-3 supplementation on BP, as Dr. Li and colleagues wrote that they found “an approximately linear relationship” between hyperlipidemia and SBP, “suggesting that increasing supplementation was associated with greater reductions in SBP.” Likewise, the study found stronger effects on BP in studies with an average patient age greater than 45 years.
In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued an update that consuming combined EPA and DHA may lower BP in the general population and reduce the risk of hypertension, but that “the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive.”
“However, while our study may add a layer of credible evidence, it does not meet the threshold to make an authorized health claim for omega-3 fatty acids in compliance with FDA regulations,” Dr. Li said.
The study addresses shortcomings of previous studies of omega-3 and BP and by identifying the optimal dose, Marc George, MRCP, PhD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College, London, and Ajay Gupta, MD, PhD, of the William Harvey Research Institute at Queen Mary University, London, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “More importantly, they have demonstrated a significantly stronger and increased BP-lowering effect in higher cardiovascular risk groups, such as those with hypertension or hyperlipidemia.”
They also noted that the 2.61–mm Hg reduction in SBP the study reported is “likely to be significant” on a population level. “A 2–mm Hg reduction in SBP is estimated to reduce stroke mortality by 10% and deaths from ischemic heart disease by 7%,” they wrote. “Expressed another way, an analysis in the U.S. population using 2010 data estimates that a population-wide reduction in SBP of 2 mm Hg in those aged 45- 64 years would translate to 30,045 fewer cardiovascular events ([coronary heart disease], stroke, and heart failure).”
The investigators and editorialists have no disclosures.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
LDL lowering to specific targets may offset risk from high Lp(a)
MILAN – The increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events caused by elevated lipoprotein(a) levels can potentially be precisely offset by lowering LDL cholesterol to specific levels, suggests a novel study that underscores the importance or early intervention.
The results, derived from an analysis of data on Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol levels and associated genetic risk scores in almost 500,000 individuals from the United Kingdom, have been used to develop a series of age-related targets for lowering LDL cholesterol levels to counter the risk associated with lifetime Lp(a) exposure.
Measuring Lp(a) levels can “substantially refine individual estimates of absolute risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study presenter Brian A. Ference, MD, Centre for Naturally Randomized Trials, University of Cambridge (England).
This can “directly inform treatment decisions about the intensity of LDL lowering or other risk-factor modification needed to overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a).”
Dr. Ference said this will allow clinicians to personalize the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and identify people “who may benefit from potent Lp(a)-lowering therapies when they become available.”
The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2022 congress on May 24.
In addition to producing a tabular version of the intensification of LDL-cholesterol reduction needed to overcome the increased cardiovascular risk at different levels of Lp(a), stratified by age, Dr. Ference is working with the EAS to develop an app to further deliver on that personalized prevention.
It will display an individual’s lifetime risk for myocardial infarction or stroke, with and without the inclusion of Lp(a) levels, and determine not only the percentage of increased risk caused by Lp(a), but also the amount by which LDL cholesterol needs to be lowered to overcome that risk.
“The whole rationale for this study was to say, how can we give practical advice on how to use Lp(a) to inform clinical decisions about how to individualize personal risk reduction,” Dr. Ference told this news organization.
“What the app will do is make it very easy for clinicians to, first, understand how much Lp(a) increases risk, but specifically how they can use that information to directly inform their treatment decisions.”
In addition, Dr. Ference said that it will “show patients why it’s important for them” to intensify LDL lowering to overcome their particular level of Lp(a).
Other key takeaways from the results is the importance of intervention as early as possible to minimize the impact of lifetime exposure to increased Lp(a), and that the reduction in LDL cholesterol required to achieve that remains relatively modest.
For Dr. Ference, this means ideally beginning comprehensive health checks at 30 years of age and starting lipid-lowering interventions immediately for those at risk.
“The good thing about LDL and other causes of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is it doesn’t really matter how you lower it,” he said, noting that it could be with diet, lifestyle interventions, or medication.
Handy tool
The new app could be a “handy tool to counsel patients,” Florian Kronenberg, MD, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, told this news organization.
“We can say, look, you have high Lp(a),” he said. “This is coming from nature, from your genetics, but here we have a point where we can act on your high risk by lowering LDL further. This is important to explain to the patient,” said Dr. Kronenberg, who was not involved in the study.
He emphasized that it is crucial to get across the idea of an individual’s global risk, with not just Lp(a) or cholesterol levels influencing their likelihood of cardiovascular events, but also their age, blood pressure, smoking status, and underlying genetic risk.
Dr. Kronenberg said the current data will be helpful in explaining to clinicians why they should lower LDL-cholesterol levels when a patients had high Lp(a), again centered on the idea of lowering their global risk.
During his presentation, Dr. Ference noted that an increase in Lp(a) levels is associated with a log-linear increase in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is proportional to the absolute, rather than relative, magnitude of Lp(a) increase.
“Unfortunately, unlike other proteins,” he continued, diet and exercise do not affect levels, and there are currently no effective therapies to lower the risks associated with increased Lp(a) concentrations.
“For that reason,” he said, the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, on which Dr. Ference was a coauthor, “recommend that we intensify life risk-factor modification in persons with elevated risks.”
However, he added, “this guidance is not specific enough to be useful, and that has created a great deal of inertia among clinicians,” with some concluding that they don’t need to measure Lp(a) “because there’s nothing they can do for it.”
Until the development of novel therapies that directly target Lp(a), the authors sought to quantify the amount of LDL lowering needed to “overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a),” he said.
They studied data on 455,765 individuals from the UK Biobank who did not have a history of cardiovascular events, diabetes, or any cancer before the age of 30. They also had LDL cholesterol levels below 5 mmol/L at the time of enrollment to exclude people with presumed familial hypercholesterolemia.
The researchers used an Lp(a) genetic risk score based on the variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 and an LDL instrumental variable genetic score comprised of 100 variants to randomly categorize individuals with average Lp(a) levels, higher Lp(a) levels, or higher Lp(a) and lower LDL-cholesterol levels.
The data showed that, with elevated absolute levels of measured Lp(a) and with elevated genetic risk scores, there was a progressive increase in the lifetime risk for major coronary events.
When looking at the combination of both increased Lp(a) levels and lower LDL-cholesterol levels, they found that the increase in risk for major coronary events at Lp(a) of 123 nmol/L could be offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 19.5 mg/dL.
For people with an Lp(a) level of 251 nmol/L, the increase in risk for major coronary events was offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 36.1 mg/dL.
Furthermore, the researchers found that the magnitude of intensification of LDL-cholesterol lowering needed to overcome the risk caused by elevated Lp(a) levels varied by age.
For example, in individuals with an Lp(a) level of 220 nmol/L, the reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels needed to offset the risk for major coronary events was calculated to be 0.8 mmol/L if lipid-lowering was started at 30 years of age, rising to 0.9 mmol/L if started at 40 years, 1.2 mmol/L if started at 50 years, and 1.5 mmol/L if started at 60 years.
This, Dr. Ference said, suggests that “diet and lifestyle modification is unlikely to be an effective strategy if started later.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Ference declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Esperion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Viatris, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, and KrKa Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kronenberg declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Kaneka.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – The increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events caused by elevated lipoprotein(a) levels can potentially be precisely offset by lowering LDL cholesterol to specific levels, suggests a novel study that underscores the importance or early intervention.
The results, derived from an analysis of data on Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol levels and associated genetic risk scores in almost 500,000 individuals from the United Kingdom, have been used to develop a series of age-related targets for lowering LDL cholesterol levels to counter the risk associated with lifetime Lp(a) exposure.
Measuring Lp(a) levels can “substantially refine individual estimates of absolute risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study presenter Brian A. Ference, MD, Centre for Naturally Randomized Trials, University of Cambridge (England).
This can “directly inform treatment decisions about the intensity of LDL lowering or other risk-factor modification needed to overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a).”
Dr. Ference said this will allow clinicians to personalize the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and identify people “who may benefit from potent Lp(a)-lowering therapies when they become available.”
The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2022 congress on May 24.
In addition to producing a tabular version of the intensification of LDL-cholesterol reduction needed to overcome the increased cardiovascular risk at different levels of Lp(a), stratified by age, Dr. Ference is working with the EAS to develop an app to further deliver on that personalized prevention.
It will display an individual’s lifetime risk for myocardial infarction or stroke, with and without the inclusion of Lp(a) levels, and determine not only the percentage of increased risk caused by Lp(a), but also the amount by which LDL cholesterol needs to be lowered to overcome that risk.
“The whole rationale for this study was to say, how can we give practical advice on how to use Lp(a) to inform clinical decisions about how to individualize personal risk reduction,” Dr. Ference told this news organization.
“What the app will do is make it very easy for clinicians to, first, understand how much Lp(a) increases risk, but specifically how they can use that information to directly inform their treatment decisions.”
In addition, Dr. Ference said that it will “show patients why it’s important for them” to intensify LDL lowering to overcome their particular level of Lp(a).
Other key takeaways from the results is the importance of intervention as early as possible to minimize the impact of lifetime exposure to increased Lp(a), and that the reduction in LDL cholesterol required to achieve that remains relatively modest.
For Dr. Ference, this means ideally beginning comprehensive health checks at 30 years of age and starting lipid-lowering interventions immediately for those at risk.
“The good thing about LDL and other causes of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is it doesn’t really matter how you lower it,” he said, noting that it could be with diet, lifestyle interventions, or medication.
Handy tool
The new app could be a “handy tool to counsel patients,” Florian Kronenberg, MD, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, told this news organization.
“We can say, look, you have high Lp(a),” he said. “This is coming from nature, from your genetics, but here we have a point where we can act on your high risk by lowering LDL further. This is important to explain to the patient,” said Dr. Kronenberg, who was not involved in the study.
He emphasized that it is crucial to get across the idea of an individual’s global risk, with not just Lp(a) or cholesterol levels influencing their likelihood of cardiovascular events, but also their age, blood pressure, smoking status, and underlying genetic risk.
Dr. Kronenberg said the current data will be helpful in explaining to clinicians why they should lower LDL-cholesterol levels when a patients had high Lp(a), again centered on the idea of lowering their global risk.
During his presentation, Dr. Ference noted that an increase in Lp(a) levels is associated with a log-linear increase in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is proportional to the absolute, rather than relative, magnitude of Lp(a) increase.
“Unfortunately, unlike other proteins,” he continued, diet and exercise do not affect levels, and there are currently no effective therapies to lower the risks associated with increased Lp(a) concentrations.
“For that reason,” he said, the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, on which Dr. Ference was a coauthor, “recommend that we intensify life risk-factor modification in persons with elevated risks.”
However, he added, “this guidance is not specific enough to be useful, and that has created a great deal of inertia among clinicians,” with some concluding that they don’t need to measure Lp(a) “because there’s nothing they can do for it.”
Until the development of novel therapies that directly target Lp(a), the authors sought to quantify the amount of LDL lowering needed to “overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a),” he said.
They studied data on 455,765 individuals from the UK Biobank who did not have a history of cardiovascular events, diabetes, or any cancer before the age of 30. They also had LDL cholesterol levels below 5 mmol/L at the time of enrollment to exclude people with presumed familial hypercholesterolemia.
The researchers used an Lp(a) genetic risk score based on the variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 and an LDL instrumental variable genetic score comprised of 100 variants to randomly categorize individuals with average Lp(a) levels, higher Lp(a) levels, or higher Lp(a) and lower LDL-cholesterol levels.
The data showed that, with elevated absolute levels of measured Lp(a) and with elevated genetic risk scores, there was a progressive increase in the lifetime risk for major coronary events.
When looking at the combination of both increased Lp(a) levels and lower LDL-cholesterol levels, they found that the increase in risk for major coronary events at Lp(a) of 123 nmol/L could be offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 19.5 mg/dL.
For people with an Lp(a) level of 251 nmol/L, the increase in risk for major coronary events was offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 36.1 mg/dL.
Furthermore, the researchers found that the magnitude of intensification of LDL-cholesterol lowering needed to overcome the risk caused by elevated Lp(a) levels varied by age.
For example, in individuals with an Lp(a) level of 220 nmol/L, the reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels needed to offset the risk for major coronary events was calculated to be 0.8 mmol/L if lipid-lowering was started at 30 years of age, rising to 0.9 mmol/L if started at 40 years, 1.2 mmol/L if started at 50 years, and 1.5 mmol/L if started at 60 years.
This, Dr. Ference said, suggests that “diet and lifestyle modification is unlikely to be an effective strategy if started later.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Ference declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Esperion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Viatris, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, and KrKa Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kronenberg declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Kaneka.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – The increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events caused by elevated lipoprotein(a) levels can potentially be precisely offset by lowering LDL cholesterol to specific levels, suggests a novel study that underscores the importance or early intervention.
The results, derived from an analysis of data on Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol levels and associated genetic risk scores in almost 500,000 individuals from the United Kingdom, have been used to develop a series of age-related targets for lowering LDL cholesterol levels to counter the risk associated with lifetime Lp(a) exposure.
Measuring Lp(a) levels can “substantially refine individual estimates of absolute risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study presenter Brian A. Ference, MD, Centre for Naturally Randomized Trials, University of Cambridge (England).
This can “directly inform treatment decisions about the intensity of LDL lowering or other risk-factor modification needed to overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a).”
Dr. Ference said this will allow clinicians to personalize the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and identify people “who may benefit from potent Lp(a)-lowering therapies when they become available.”
The research was presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2022 congress on May 24.
In addition to producing a tabular version of the intensification of LDL-cholesterol reduction needed to overcome the increased cardiovascular risk at different levels of Lp(a), stratified by age, Dr. Ference is working with the EAS to develop an app to further deliver on that personalized prevention.
It will display an individual’s lifetime risk for myocardial infarction or stroke, with and without the inclusion of Lp(a) levels, and determine not only the percentage of increased risk caused by Lp(a), but also the amount by which LDL cholesterol needs to be lowered to overcome that risk.
“The whole rationale for this study was to say, how can we give practical advice on how to use Lp(a) to inform clinical decisions about how to individualize personal risk reduction,” Dr. Ference told this news organization.
“What the app will do is make it very easy for clinicians to, first, understand how much Lp(a) increases risk, but specifically how they can use that information to directly inform their treatment decisions.”
In addition, Dr. Ference said that it will “show patients why it’s important for them” to intensify LDL lowering to overcome their particular level of Lp(a).
Other key takeaways from the results is the importance of intervention as early as possible to minimize the impact of lifetime exposure to increased Lp(a), and that the reduction in LDL cholesterol required to achieve that remains relatively modest.
For Dr. Ference, this means ideally beginning comprehensive health checks at 30 years of age and starting lipid-lowering interventions immediately for those at risk.
“The good thing about LDL and other causes of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is it doesn’t really matter how you lower it,” he said, noting that it could be with diet, lifestyle interventions, or medication.
Handy tool
The new app could be a “handy tool to counsel patients,” Florian Kronenberg, MD, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, told this news organization.
“We can say, look, you have high Lp(a),” he said. “This is coming from nature, from your genetics, but here we have a point where we can act on your high risk by lowering LDL further. This is important to explain to the patient,” said Dr. Kronenberg, who was not involved in the study.
He emphasized that it is crucial to get across the idea of an individual’s global risk, with not just Lp(a) or cholesterol levels influencing their likelihood of cardiovascular events, but also their age, blood pressure, smoking status, and underlying genetic risk.
Dr. Kronenberg said the current data will be helpful in explaining to clinicians why they should lower LDL-cholesterol levels when a patients had high Lp(a), again centered on the idea of lowering their global risk.
During his presentation, Dr. Ference noted that an increase in Lp(a) levels is associated with a log-linear increase in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that is proportional to the absolute, rather than relative, magnitude of Lp(a) increase.
“Unfortunately, unlike other proteins,” he continued, diet and exercise do not affect levels, and there are currently no effective therapies to lower the risks associated with increased Lp(a) concentrations.
“For that reason,” he said, the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, on which Dr. Ference was a coauthor, “recommend that we intensify life risk-factor modification in persons with elevated risks.”
However, he added, “this guidance is not specific enough to be useful, and that has created a great deal of inertia among clinicians,” with some concluding that they don’t need to measure Lp(a) “because there’s nothing they can do for it.”
Until the development of novel therapies that directly target Lp(a), the authors sought to quantify the amount of LDL lowering needed to “overcome the increased risk caused by Lp(a),” he said.
They studied data on 455,765 individuals from the UK Biobank who did not have a history of cardiovascular events, diabetes, or any cancer before the age of 30. They also had LDL cholesterol levels below 5 mmol/L at the time of enrollment to exclude people with presumed familial hypercholesterolemia.
The researchers used an Lp(a) genetic risk score based on the variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 and an LDL instrumental variable genetic score comprised of 100 variants to randomly categorize individuals with average Lp(a) levels, higher Lp(a) levels, or higher Lp(a) and lower LDL-cholesterol levels.
The data showed that, with elevated absolute levels of measured Lp(a) and with elevated genetic risk scores, there was a progressive increase in the lifetime risk for major coronary events.
When looking at the combination of both increased Lp(a) levels and lower LDL-cholesterol levels, they found that the increase in risk for major coronary events at Lp(a) of 123 nmol/L could be offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 19.5 mg/dL.
For people with an Lp(a) level of 251 nmol/L, the increase in risk for major coronary events was offset by a reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels of 36.1 mg/dL.
Furthermore, the researchers found that the magnitude of intensification of LDL-cholesterol lowering needed to overcome the risk caused by elevated Lp(a) levels varied by age.
For example, in individuals with an Lp(a) level of 220 nmol/L, the reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels needed to offset the risk for major coronary events was calculated to be 0.8 mmol/L if lipid-lowering was started at 30 years of age, rising to 0.9 mmol/L if started at 40 years, 1.2 mmol/L if started at 50 years, and 1.5 mmol/L if started at 60 years.
This, Dr. Ference said, suggests that “diet and lifestyle modification is unlikely to be an effective strategy if started later.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Ference declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Esperion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Viatris, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, and KrKa Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kronenberg declared relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Kaneka.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EAS 2022
Very high HDL-C: Too much of a good thing?
A new study suggests that .
Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.
A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.
“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.
“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Inverse association?
HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.
Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.
To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.
Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.
Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.
Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).
“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”
Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).
Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.
Similar findings were obtained in the EmCAB patients, 1.6% of whom had HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL. During the follow-up period, 26.9% and 13.8% of participants sustained all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively. Of those with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL, 30.0% and 16.7% experienced all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively.
Compared with those with HDL-C levels of 40-60 mg/dL, those in the lowest (≤30 mg/dL) and highest (>80 mg/dL) groups had a “significant or near-significant greater risk for all-cause death in both unadjusted and fully adjusted models.
“Using adjusted HR curves, a U-shaped association between HDL-C and adverse events was evident with higher mortality at both very high and low HDL-C levels,” the authors noted.
Compared with patients without diabetes, those with diabetes and an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death, and patients younger than 65 years had a higher risk for cardiovascular death than patients 65 years and older.
The researchers found a “positive linear association” between the HDL-C genetic risk score (GRS) and HDL levels, wherein a 1-SD higher HDL-C GRS was associated with a 3.03 mg/dL higher HDL-C level (2.83-3.22; P < .001; R 2 = 0.06).
The HDL-C GRS was not associated with the risk for all-cause or cardiovascular death in unadjusted models, and after the HDL-C GRS was added to the fully adjusted models, the association with HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL was not attenuated, “indicating that HDL-C genetic variations in the GRS do not contribute substantially to the risk.”
“Potential mechanisms through which very high HDL-C might cause adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD need to be studied,” Dr. Quyyumi said. “Whether the functional capacity of the HDL particle is altered when the level is very high remains unknown. Whether it is more able to oxidize and thus shift from being protective to harmful also needs to be investigated.”
Red flag
Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”
In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”
They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”
This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study suggests that .
Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.
A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.
“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.
“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Inverse association?
HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.
Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.
To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.
Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.
Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.
Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).
“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”
Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).
Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.
Similar findings were obtained in the EmCAB patients, 1.6% of whom had HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL. During the follow-up period, 26.9% and 13.8% of participants sustained all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively. Of those with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL, 30.0% and 16.7% experienced all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively.
Compared with those with HDL-C levels of 40-60 mg/dL, those in the lowest (≤30 mg/dL) and highest (>80 mg/dL) groups had a “significant or near-significant greater risk for all-cause death in both unadjusted and fully adjusted models.
“Using adjusted HR curves, a U-shaped association between HDL-C and adverse events was evident with higher mortality at both very high and low HDL-C levels,” the authors noted.
Compared with patients without diabetes, those with diabetes and an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death, and patients younger than 65 years had a higher risk for cardiovascular death than patients 65 years and older.
The researchers found a “positive linear association” between the HDL-C genetic risk score (GRS) and HDL levels, wherein a 1-SD higher HDL-C GRS was associated with a 3.03 mg/dL higher HDL-C level (2.83-3.22; P < .001; R 2 = 0.06).
The HDL-C GRS was not associated with the risk for all-cause or cardiovascular death in unadjusted models, and after the HDL-C GRS was added to the fully adjusted models, the association with HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL was not attenuated, “indicating that HDL-C genetic variations in the GRS do not contribute substantially to the risk.”
“Potential mechanisms through which very high HDL-C might cause adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD need to be studied,” Dr. Quyyumi said. “Whether the functional capacity of the HDL particle is altered when the level is very high remains unknown. Whether it is more able to oxidize and thus shift from being protective to harmful also needs to be investigated.”
Red flag
Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”
In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”
They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”
This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study suggests that .
Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.
A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.
“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.
“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Inverse association?
HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.
Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.
To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.
Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.
Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.
Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).
“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”
Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).
Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.
Similar findings were obtained in the EmCAB patients, 1.6% of whom had HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL. During the follow-up period, 26.9% and 13.8% of participants sustained all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively. Of those with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL, 30.0% and 16.7% experienced all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively.
Compared with those with HDL-C levels of 40-60 mg/dL, those in the lowest (≤30 mg/dL) and highest (>80 mg/dL) groups had a “significant or near-significant greater risk for all-cause death in both unadjusted and fully adjusted models.
“Using adjusted HR curves, a U-shaped association between HDL-C and adverse events was evident with higher mortality at both very high and low HDL-C levels,” the authors noted.
Compared with patients without diabetes, those with diabetes and an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death, and patients younger than 65 years had a higher risk for cardiovascular death than patients 65 years and older.
The researchers found a “positive linear association” between the HDL-C genetic risk score (GRS) and HDL levels, wherein a 1-SD higher HDL-C GRS was associated with a 3.03 mg/dL higher HDL-C level (2.83-3.22; P < .001; R 2 = 0.06).
The HDL-C GRS was not associated with the risk for all-cause or cardiovascular death in unadjusted models, and after the HDL-C GRS was added to the fully adjusted models, the association with HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL was not attenuated, “indicating that HDL-C genetic variations in the GRS do not contribute substantially to the risk.”
“Potential mechanisms through which very high HDL-C might cause adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD need to be studied,” Dr. Quyyumi said. “Whether the functional capacity of the HDL particle is altered when the level is very high remains unknown. Whether it is more able to oxidize and thus shift from being protective to harmful also needs to be investigated.”
Red flag
Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”
In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”
They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”
This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line therapy in type 2 diabetes?
Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.
Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.
The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough
However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”
Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”
Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.
In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.
He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.
“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”
The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.
“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”
Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.
“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.
First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar
The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.
From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.
The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.
Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).
However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.
Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.
Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
How does cost factor in?
A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.
Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.
However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.
He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”
Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”
Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”
The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.
Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.
The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough
However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”
Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”
Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.
In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.
He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.
“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”
The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.
“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”
Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.
“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.
First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar
The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.
From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.
The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.
Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).
However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.
Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.
Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
How does cost factor in?
A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.
Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.
However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.
He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”
Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”
Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”
The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.
Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.
The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough
However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”
Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”
Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.
In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.
He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.
“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”
The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.
“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”
Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.
“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.
First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar
The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.
From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.
The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.
Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).
However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.
Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.
Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
How does cost factor in?
A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.
Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.
However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.
He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”
Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”
Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”
The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE