Stroke

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

A secondary analysis of a large landmark clinical trial of how the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin effects cardiovascular risk has identified two biomarkers that can help better determine which patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease risk would derive the most benefit from the drug.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

The researchers found that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) levels helped identify a subset of T2D patients at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events who would benefit most from dapagliflozin.

“We’ve shown previously that these two biomarkers are very robust risk indicators for cardiovascular death and heart failure events,” senior study author David A. Morrow, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. “In this study, we now show that the two biomarkers also yield important prognostic information for MACE [major adverse cardiovascular events].”

Although NT-proBNP is typically measured to diagnose heart failure, and hsTnT to diagnose acute MI, Dr. Morrow pointed out that this analysis demonstrated the potential for using the two tests to evaluate risks in T2D patients.
 

Study results

The secondary analysis included 14,565 patients in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. The patients had T2D and multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (about 60%) or established ASCVD (about 40%). All patients had available blood samples and the data were collected from May 2013 to September 2018. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The results were reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

The analysis found that higher baseline concentrations of NT-proBNP increased MACE risks by 62% (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.76) and hsTnT elevated those risks by 59% (95% CI, 1.46-1.74).

Among placebo patients, when divided into risk quartiles, those in the highest quartile had significantly higher risk with both elevated NT-proBNP and hsTnT, compared with those with low concentrations. For example, patients with established ASCVD had a 22.9% risk vs. 9.5% with elevated NT-proBNP (P < .001) and a 24.2% vs. 7.2% risk with elevated hsTnT (P < .001). The gap was similar for patients with multiple risk factors.

Dr. Morrow noted that the main DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial showed that dapagliflozin reduced the rates of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2D, when compared to placebo, but didn’t reach statistical significance for MACE (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347-57).

“We have previously shown that among patients with T2D who have high risk indicators, such as prior MI or long-standing diabetes, dapagliflozin also appeared to reduce MACE,” Dr. Morrow said. “In this study, we find that these two widely available biomarkers also identify a high-risk group who may have even more potential benefits from treatment with an SGLT2i.”

Dr. Morrow noted that the study design – a nested prospective biomarker study within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial – “is a particular strength.”
 

Results clarify which patients will benefit

This secondary analysis of DECLARE-TIMI 58 brings more clarity to the types of T2D patients who will get the most cardiovascular benefits from dapagliflozin, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, and Endowed Chair of Preventive Cardiology at the Lundquist Institute in Torrance, Calif.

Lundquist Institute

“The big picture is, we’ve known for some time from epidemiologic studies that these biomarkers, when they’re elevated, mean that the patient is at higher risk of having a cardiovascular event,” he said, “but I think what it helps us with is in knowing in whom to use dapagliflozin for prevention of ASCVD. The effect in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial was quite modest, but if you can subgroup it, in these high-risk people there’s a more profound effect. It helps in risk stratification because the absolute benefit is larger.”

The specific biomarkers, NT-proBNP and hsTnT, “haven’t been explored very much in clinical trials,” Dr. Budoff said, “so I do think that it’s nice that in a randomized trial it plays out the way we might expect.”

He added that “for many clinicians this is novel, because I don’t think they were aware of the biomarker data, so I think that this does add some clinical benefit in that context.” The findings also strengthen the case to get T2D patients with higher ASCVD risk onto SGLT2 inhibitors if they’re not already, he said.

Dr. Morrow disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Siemens, and InCarda outside the reported work.

Dr. Budoff has no relevant disclosures.

A secondary analysis of a large landmark clinical trial of how the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin effects cardiovascular risk has identified two biomarkers that can help better determine which patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease risk would derive the most benefit from the drug.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

The researchers found that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) levels helped identify a subset of T2D patients at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events who would benefit most from dapagliflozin.

“We’ve shown previously that these two biomarkers are very robust risk indicators for cardiovascular death and heart failure events,” senior study author David A. Morrow, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. “In this study, we now show that the two biomarkers also yield important prognostic information for MACE [major adverse cardiovascular events].”

Although NT-proBNP is typically measured to diagnose heart failure, and hsTnT to diagnose acute MI, Dr. Morrow pointed out that this analysis demonstrated the potential for using the two tests to evaluate risks in T2D patients.
 

Study results

The secondary analysis included 14,565 patients in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. The patients had T2D and multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (about 60%) or established ASCVD (about 40%). All patients had available blood samples and the data were collected from May 2013 to September 2018. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The results were reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

The analysis found that higher baseline concentrations of NT-proBNP increased MACE risks by 62% (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.76) and hsTnT elevated those risks by 59% (95% CI, 1.46-1.74).

Among placebo patients, when divided into risk quartiles, those in the highest quartile had significantly higher risk with both elevated NT-proBNP and hsTnT, compared with those with low concentrations. For example, patients with established ASCVD had a 22.9% risk vs. 9.5% with elevated NT-proBNP (P < .001) and a 24.2% vs. 7.2% risk with elevated hsTnT (P < .001). The gap was similar for patients with multiple risk factors.

Dr. Morrow noted that the main DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial showed that dapagliflozin reduced the rates of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2D, when compared to placebo, but didn’t reach statistical significance for MACE (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347-57).

“We have previously shown that among patients with T2D who have high risk indicators, such as prior MI or long-standing diabetes, dapagliflozin also appeared to reduce MACE,” Dr. Morrow said. “In this study, we find that these two widely available biomarkers also identify a high-risk group who may have even more potential benefits from treatment with an SGLT2i.”

Dr. Morrow noted that the study design – a nested prospective biomarker study within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial – “is a particular strength.”
 

Results clarify which patients will benefit

This secondary analysis of DECLARE-TIMI 58 brings more clarity to the types of T2D patients who will get the most cardiovascular benefits from dapagliflozin, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, and Endowed Chair of Preventive Cardiology at the Lundquist Institute in Torrance, Calif.

Lundquist Institute

“The big picture is, we’ve known for some time from epidemiologic studies that these biomarkers, when they’re elevated, mean that the patient is at higher risk of having a cardiovascular event,” he said, “but I think what it helps us with is in knowing in whom to use dapagliflozin for prevention of ASCVD. The effect in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial was quite modest, but if you can subgroup it, in these high-risk people there’s a more profound effect. It helps in risk stratification because the absolute benefit is larger.”

The specific biomarkers, NT-proBNP and hsTnT, “haven’t been explored very much in clinical trials,” Dr. Budoff said, “so I do think that it’s nice that in a randomized trial it plays out the way we might expect.”

He added that “for many clinicians this is novel, because I don’t think they were aware of the biomarker data, so I think that this does add some clinical benefit in that context.” The findings also strengthen the case to get T2D patients with higher ASCVD risk onto SGLT2 inhibitors if they’re not already, he said.

Dr. Morrow disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Siemens, and InCarda outside the reported work.

Dr. Budoff has no relevant disclosures.

A secondary analysis of a large landmark clinical trial of how the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin effects cardiovascular risk has identified two biomarkers that can help better determine which patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease risk would derive the most benefit from the drug.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

The researchers found that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) levels helped identify a subset of T2D patients at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events who would benefit most from dapagliflozin.

“We’ve shown previously that these two biomarkers are very robust risk indicators for cardiovascular death and heart failure events,” senior study author David A. Morrow, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. “In this study, we now show that the two biomarkers also yield important prognostic information for MACE [major adverse cardiovascular events].”

Although NT-proBNP is typically measured to diagnose heart failure, and hsTnT to diagnose acute MI, Dr. Morrow pointed out that this analysis demonstrated the potential for using the two tests to evaluate risks in T2D patients.
 

Study results

The secondary analysis included 14,565 patients in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. The patients had T2D and multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (about 60%) or established ASCVD (about 40%). All patients had available blood samples and the data were collected from May 2013 to September 2018. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The results were reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

The analysis found that higher baseline concentrations of NT-proBNP increased MACE risks by 62% (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.76) and hsTnT elevated those risks by 59% (95% CI, 1.46-1.74).

Among placebo patients, when divided into risk quartiles, those in the highest quartile had significantly higher risk with both elevated NT-proBNP and hsTnT, compared with those with low concentrations. For example, patients with established ASCVD had a 22.9% risk vs. 9.5% with elevated NT-proBNP (P < .001) and a 24.2% vs. 7.2% risk with elevated hsTnT (P < .001). The gap was similar for patients with multiple risk factors.

Dr. Morrow noted that the main DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial showed that dapagliflozin reduced the rates of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with T2D, when compared to placebo, but didn’t reach statistical significance for MACE (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347-57).

“We have previously shown that among patients with T2D who have high risk indicators, such as prior MI or long-standing diabetes, dapagliflozin also appeared to reduce MACE,” Dr. Morrow said. “In this study, we find that these two widely available biomarkers also identify a high-risk group who may have even more potential benefits from treatment with an SGLT2i.”

Dr. Morrow noted that the study design – a nested prospective biomarker study within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial – “is a particular strength.”
 

Results clarify which patients will benefit

This secondary analysis of DECLARE-TIMI 58 brings more clarity to the types of T2D patients who will get the most cardiovascular benefits from dapagliflozin, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, and Endowed Chair of Preventive Cardiology at the Lundquist Institute in Torrance, Calif.

Lundquist Institute

“The big picture is, we’ve known for some time from epidemiologic studies that these biomarkers, when they’re elevated, mean that the patient is at higher risk of having a cardiovascular event,” he said, “but I think what it helps us with is in knowing in whom to use dapagliflozin for prevention of ASCVD. The effect in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial was quite modest, but if you can subgroup it, in these high-risk people there’s a more profound effect. It helps in risk stratification because the absolute benefit is larger.”

The specific biomarkers, NT-proBNP and hsTnT, “haven’t been explored very much in clinical trials,” Dr. Budoff said, “so I do think that it’s nice that in a randomized trial it plays out the way we might expect.”

He added that “for many clinicians this is novel, because I don’t think they were aware of the biomarker data, so I think that this does add some clinical benefit in that context.” The findings also strengthen the case to get T2D patients with higher ASCVD risk onto SGLT2 inhibitors if they’re not already, he said.

Dr. Morrow disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Siemens, and InCarda outside the reported work.

Dr. Budoff has no relevant disclosures.

A multipart study reports that erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener that is also made in the body – is associated with risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and promotes clotting (thrombosis).

Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.

The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.

First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. 

Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.

Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.

“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.  

“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.

“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.

The topic remains controversial.

Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.” 

Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day. 

“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”

“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
 

Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.

Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.

Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
 

Multipart study

In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.

Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.

In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).

At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.

Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
 

Others weigh in

“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.

Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”

“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.

“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.

Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”

The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.

The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A multipart study reports that erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener that is also made in the body – is associated with risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and promotes clotting (thrombosis).

Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.

The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.

First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. 

Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.

Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.

“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.  

“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.

“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.

The topic remains controversial.

Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.” 

Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day. 

“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”

“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
 

Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.

Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.

Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
 

Multipart study

In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.

Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.

In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).

At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.

Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
 

Others weigh in

“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.

Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”

“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.

“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.

Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”

The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.

The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A multipart study reports that erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener that is also made in the body – is associated with risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and promotes clotting (thrombosis).

Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.

The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.

First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. 

Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.

Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.

“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.  

“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.

“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.

The topic remains controversial.

Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.” 

Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day. 

“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”

“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
 

Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.

Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.

Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
 

Multipart study

In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.

Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.

In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).

At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.

Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
 

Others weigh in

“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.

Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”

“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.

“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.

Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”

The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.

The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, researchers have used electrical stimulation of the cervical spinal cord to immediately restore arm and hand movement in two patients with chronic moderate to severe upper limb paresis.

The results provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” wrote first author Marc P. Powell, PhD, of Reach Neuro Inc., Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

The findings were published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Top cause of paralysis

“Stroke is the largest cause of paralysis in the world,” with nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experiencing lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand, co–senior study author Marco Capogrosso, PhD, assistant professor of neurological surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said during a press briefing.

Stroke can disrupt communication between the brain and the spinal cord, leading to motor deficits in the arm and hand. However, below the lesion, the spinal circuits that control movement remain intact and could be targeted to restore function, Dr. Capogrosso noted.

Spinal cord stimulation has shown promise in promoting long-lasting recovery of leg motor function in patients with spinal cord injury; but until now, it’s been largely unexplored for upper-limb recovery.

In this “first-in-human” study, the investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two patients.

One of the patients was a woman (age, 31 years) who had experienced a right thalamic hemorrhagic stroke secondary to a cavernous malformation 9 years before enrolling in the pilot study.

The other patient was a woman (age, 47 years) who experienced a right ischemic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke secondary to a right carotid dissection, resulting in a large MCA territory infarct 3 years before entering the study. 

In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.

The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that the younger woman had not been able to do for 9 years.

“Perhaps even more interesting, we found that after a few weeks of use, some of these improvements endure when the stimulation is switched off, indicating exciting avenues for the future of stroke therapies,” Dr. Capogrosso said in a news release. 

No serious adverse events were reported.
 

‘Easily translated’

Dr. Capogrosso said that, thanks to years of preclinical research, the investigators have developed a practical, easy-to-use stimulation protocol adapting existing clinical technologies that “could be easily translated to the hospital and quickly moved from the lab to the clinic.”

The researchers noted, however, that further studies in larger cohorts will be required to validate the safety and efficacy of this approach.

They are currently working with more patients with stroke to fine-tune placement of the leads and stimulation protocol, as well as determine which patients are best suited for the approach.

“Creating effective neurorehabilitation solutions for people affected by movement impairment after stroke is becoming ever more urgent,” co–senior author Elvira Pirondini, PhD, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh, said in the release.

“Even mild deficits resulting from a stroke can isolate people from social and professional lives and become very debilitating, with motor impairments in the arm and hand being especially taxing and impeding simple daily activities, such as writing, eating, and getting dressed,” she added.

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, with additional research support provided by the Department of Neurological Surgery and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Pitt, and the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Neuroscience Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Three investigators have financial interests in Reach Neuro, which has an interest in the technology being evaluated in this study.

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

For the first time, researchers have used electrical stimulation of the cervical spinal cord to immediately restore arm and hand movement in two patients with chronic moderate to severe upper limb paresis.

The results provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” wrote first author Marc P. Powell, PhD, of Reach Neuro Inc., Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

The findings were published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Top cause of paralysis

“Stroke is the largest cause of paralysis in the world,” with nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experiencing lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand, co–senior study author Marco Capogrosso, PhD, assistant professor of neurological surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said during a press briefing.

Stroke can disrupt communication between the brain and the spinal cord, leading to motor deficits in the arm and hand. However, below the lesion, the spinal circuits that control movement remain intact and could be targeted to restore function, Dr. Capogrosso noted.

Spinal cord stimulation has shown promise in promoting long-lasting recovery of leg motor function in patients with spinal cord injury; but until now, it’s been largely unexplored for upper-limb recovery.

In this “first-in-human” study, the investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two patients.

One of the patients was a woman (age, 31 years) who had experienced a right thalamic hemorrhagic stroke secondary to a cavernous malformation 9 years before enrolling in the pilot study.

The other patient was a woman (age, 47 years) who experienced a right ischemic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke secondary to a right carotid dissection, resulting in a large MCA territory infarct 3 years before entering the study. 

In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.

The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that the younger woman had not been able to do for 9 years.

“Perhaps even more interesting, we found that after a few weeks of use, some of these improvements endure when the stimulation is switched off, indicating exciting avenues for the future of stroke therapies,” Dr. Capogrosso said in a news release. 

No serious adverse events were reported.
 

‘Easily translated’

Dr. Capogrosso said that, thanks to years of preclinical research, the investigators have developed a practical, easy-to-use stimulation protocol adapting existing clinical technologies that “could be easily translated to the hospital and quickly moved from the lab to the clinic.”

The researchers noted, however, that further studies in larger cohorts will be required to validate the safety and efficacy of this approach.

They are currently working with more patients with stroke to fine-tune placement of the leads and stimulation protocol, as well as determine which patients are best suited for the approach.

“Creating effective neurorehabilitation solutions for people affected by movement impairment after stroke is becoming ever more urgent,” co–senior author Elvira Pirondini, PhD, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh, said in the release.

“Even mild deficits resulting from a stroke can isolate people from social and professional lives and become very debilitating, with motor impairments in the arm and hand being especially taxing and impeding simple daily activities, such as writing, eating, and getting dressed,” she added.

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, with additional research support provided by the Department of Neurological Surgery and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Pitt, and the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Neuroscience Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Three investigators have financial interests in Reach Neuro, which has an interest in the technology being evaluated in this study.

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

For the first time, researchers have used electrical stimulation of the cervical spinal cord to immediately restore arm and hand movement in two patients with chronic moderate to severe upper limb paresis.

The results provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” wrote first author Marc P. Powell, PhD, of Reach Neuro Inc., Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

The findings were published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Top cause of paralysis

“Stroke is the largest cause of paralysis in the world,” with nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experiencing lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand, co–senior study author Marco Capogrosso, PhD, assistant professor of neurological surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said during a press briefing.

Stroke can disrupt communication between the brain and the spinal cord, leading to motor deficits in the arm and hand. However, below the lesion, the spinal circuits that control movement remain intact and could be targeted to restore function, Dr. Capogrosso noted.

Spinal cord stimulation has shown promise in promoting long-lasting recovery of leg motor function in patients with spinal cord injury; but until now, it’s been largely unexplored for upper-limb recovery.

In this “first-in-human” study, the investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two patients.

One of the patients was a woman (age, 31 years) who had experienced a right thalamic hemorrhagic stroke secondary to a cavernous malformation 9 years before enrolling in the pilot study.

The other patient was a woman (age, 47 years) who experienced a right ischemic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke secondary to a right carotid dissection, resulting in a large MCA territory infarct 3 years before entering the study. 

In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.

The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that the younger woman had not been able to do for 9 years.

“Perhaps even more interesting, we found that after a few weeks of use, some of these improvements endure when the stimulation is switched off, indicating exciting avenues for the future of stroke therapies,” Dr. Capogrosso said in a news release. 

No serious adverse events were reported.
 

‘Easily translated’

Dr. Capogrosso said that, thanks to years of preclinical research, the investigators have developed a practical, easy-to-use stimulation protocol adapting existing clinical technologies that “could be easily translated to the hospital and quickly moved from the lab to the clinic.”

The researchers noted, however, that further studies in larger cohorts will be required to validate the safety and efficacy of this approach.

They are currently working with more patients with stroke to fine-tune placement of the leads and stimulation protocol, as well as determine which patients are best suited for the approach.

“Creating effective neurorehabilitation solutions for people affected by movement impairment after stroke is becoming ever more urgent,” co–senior author Elvira Pirondini, PhD, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh, said in the release.

“Even mild deficits resulting from a stroke can isolate people from social and professional lives and become very debilitating, with motor impairments in the arm and hand being especially taxing and impeding simple daily activities, such as writing, eating, and getting dressed,” she added.

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, with additional research support provided by the Department of Neurological Surgery and the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Pitt, and the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Neuroscience Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Three investigators have financial interests in Reach Neuro, which has an interest in the technology being evaluated in this study.

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

Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Editorialists advise careful consideration

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.

They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.

In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
 

Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk

While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.

In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).

Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.

Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.

Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
 

Differences in U.S. guidelines

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.

They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.

They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
 

‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”

The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.

The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.

The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.

Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.

They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”

The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.

The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Editorialists advise careful consideration

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.

They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.

In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
 

Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk

While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.

In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).

Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.

Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.

Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
 

Differences in U.S. guidelines

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.

They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.

They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
 

‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”

The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.

The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.

The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.

Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.

They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”

The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.

The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Editorialists advise careful consideration

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.

They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.

In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
 

Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk

While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.

In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).

Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.

Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.

Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
 

Differences in U.S. guidelines

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.

They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.

They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
 

‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”

The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.

The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.

The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.

Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.

They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”

The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.

The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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