Sue Hughes

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Cumulative systolic blood pressure load, which can be calculated from serial blood pressure measurements, may provide better prediction of major cardiovascular events, compared with traditional blood pressure measures, a new study suggests.

“Our results suggest that cumulative blood pressure load is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and should be used in future cardiovascular risk prediction algorithms,” the authors, led by Nelson Wang, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, conclude.

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

Cumulative systolic blood pressure load, which can be calculated from serial blood pressure measurements, may provide better prediction of major cardiovascular events, compared with traditional blood pressure measures, a new study suggests.

“Our results suggest that cumulative blood pressure load is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and should be used in future cardiovascular risk prediction algorithms,” the authors, led by Nelson Wang, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, conclude.

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

Cumulative systolic blood pressure load, which can be calculated from serial blood pressure measurements, may provide better prediction of major cardiovascular events, compared with traditional blood pressure measures, a new study suggests.

“Our results suggest that cumulative blood pressure load is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and should be used in future cardiovascular risk prediction algorithms,” the authors, led by Nelson Wang, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, conclude.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.

Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.

Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.

There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.

“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

New generation

Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.

This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.

“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”

Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.

The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.

Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.

They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.

The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).

However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).

The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.

Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
 

Incremental improvement

On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.

“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.

He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.

In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.

Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.

She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials

“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.

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

The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.

Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.

Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.

There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.

“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

New generation

Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.

This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.

“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”

Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.

The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.

Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.

They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.

The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).

However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).

The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.

Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
 

Incremental improvement

On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.

“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.

He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.

In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.

Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.

She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials

“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.

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

The new factor XI inhibitor antithrombotic, milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen), has shown promising results in a dose-finding phase 2 trial in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), when given in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy.

Although there was no significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI at 90 days with milvexian versus placebo in the AXIOMATIC-SSP study, with no apparent dose response, the drug numerically reduced the risk for symptomatic ischemic stroke at most doses. And doses from 25 mg to 100 mg twice daily showed an approximately 30% relative risk reduction in symptomatic ischemic stroke versus placebo.

Milvexian at 25 mg once and twice daily was associated with a low incidence of major bleeding; a moderate increase in bleeding was seen with higher doses.

There was no increase in severe bleeding, compared with placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred any study group.

“Based on the observed efficacy signal for ischemic stroke, the bleeding profile, and the overall safety and tolerability, milvexian will be further studied in a phase 3 trial in a similar stroke population,” concluded lead investigator, Mukul Sharma, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Sharma presented the AXIOMATIC-SSP study results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

New generation

Dr. Sharma explained that factor XI inhibitors represent the latest hope for a new generation of antithrombotic drugs with a low bleeding risk.

This has come about after observations that individuals born with factor XI deficiency have lower rates of ischemic stroke and thromboembolism than matched controls, without an offsetting increase in cerebral hemorrhage. In addition, spontaneous bleeding in these individuals is uncommon, and it is thought that factor XI is a strong driver of thrombus growth but plays a less important role in hemostasis, he noted.

“I think there is a tremendous niche for these drugs in stroke prevention,” Dr. Sharma said in an interview. “There is a huge unmet need in stroke patients for something other than aspirin over the long term which is effective but doesn’t cause hemorrhage.”

Dr. Sharma reported that antithrombotic efficacy of milvexian has already been demonstrated in a study of patients undergoing knee replacement in which the drug showed similar or increased efficacy in reducing thromboembolism, compared with enoxaparin, 40 mg, without an increase in major bleeding.

The aim of the current AXIOMATIC-SSP study was to find a dose suitable for use in the treatment of patients with acute stroke or TIA.

Patients with an acute ischemic stroke or TIA are at a high risk for another stroke in the first few months. Although antiplatelet drugs have reduced this event rate, there is still a significant residual risk for ischemic stroke, and the potential for major bleeding with additional antithrombotic therapies has limited the effectiveness of these options, Dr. Sharma explained. Currently, no anticoagulants are approved for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke prevention in the early phase.

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study included 2,366 patients within 48 hours of onset of a mild to moderate acute nonlacunar ischemic stroke. All patients had visible atherosclerotic plaque in a vessel supplying the affected brain region, and they all received background treatment with open-label aspirin and clopidogrel for 21 days, followed by open-label aspirin alone from days 22 to 90.

They were randomly assigned to one of five doses of milvexian (25, 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg once daily) or placebo daily for 90 days.

The primary efficacy endpoint (symptomatic ischemic stroke or incident infarct on brain MRI) was numerically lower at the 50-mg and 100-mg twice-daily doses, and there was no apparent dose response (placebo, 16.6%; 25 mg once daily, 16.2%; 25 mg twice daily, 18.5%; 50 mg twice daily, 14.1%; 100 mg twice daily, 14.7%; 200 mg twice daily, 16.4%).

However, milvexian was associated with a numerically lower risk for clinical ischemic stroke at all doses except 200 mg twice daily, with doses from 25 to 100 mg twice daily showing an approximately 30% relative risk reduction versus placebo (placebo, 5.5%; 25 mg once daily, 4.6%; 25 mg twice daily, 3.8%; 50 mg twice daily, 4.0%; 100 mg twice daily, 3.5%; 200 mg twice daily, 7.7%).

The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. This was similar to placebo for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily (all 0.6%) but was moderately increased in the 50 mg twice daily (1.5%), 100 mg twice daily (1.6%), and 200 mg twice daily (1.5%) groups.

Most major bleeding episodes were gastrointestinal. There was no increase in severe bleeding or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage versus placebo, and no fatal bleeding occurred in any arm of the study.
 

Incremental improvement

On the hope for a class of drugs that reduce ischemic events without increasing bleeding, Dr. Sharma said, “we keep hoping for a home run where there is no increase in bleeding with a new generation of antithrombotic, but what we seem to get is an incremental improvement with each new class.

“Factor Xa inhibitors have a lower rate of bleeding, compared to warfarin. I think we will see another incremental improvement in bleeding with these new factor XI inhibitors and hopefully less of the more serious bleeding,” he said in an interview.

He pointed out that, in this study, milvexian was given on top of dual antiplatelet therapy. “In stroke neurology that sounds very risky as we know that going from a single antiplatelet to two antiplatelet agents increases the risk of bleeding and now we are adding in a third antithrombotic, but we feel comfortable doing it because of what has been observed in patients who have a genetic deficiency of factor XI – very low rates of spontaneous bleeding and they don’t bleed intracranially largely,” he added.

In addition to milvexian, another oral factor XI inhibitor, asundexian (Bayer), is also in development, and similar results were reported in a phase 2 stroke trial (PACIFIC-STROKE) at the same ESC session.

Both drugs are now believed to be going forward into phase 3 trials.

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Giovanna Liuzzo, MD, Catholic University of Rome, highlighted the large unmet need for stroke therapies, noting that patients with acute stroke or TIA have a stroke recurrence rate of 5% at 30 days and 17% at 2 years. Although antiplatelet agents are recommended, the use of anticoagulants has been limited by concerns over bleeding risk, and the factor XI inhibitors are promising in that they have the potential for a lower bleeding risk.

She suggested that results from the AXIOMATIC-SSP could point to a dose of milvexian of 25 mg twice daily as a balance between efficacy and bleeding to be taken into larger phase 3 trials

“The jury is still out on the safety and efficacy of milvexian as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent noncardioembolic stroke,” Dr. Liuzzo concluded. “Only large-scale phase 3 trials will establish the safety and efficacy of factor XI inhibitors in the prevention of venous and arterial thrombosis.”

The AXIOMATIC-SSP study was funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen alliance. Dr. Sharma reported research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, HLS Therapeutics, and Alexion.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

BARCELONA – Patients with hypertension who took their antihypertensive medication in the evening or in the morning had similar rates of cardiovascular events over the following 5 years, in the much-anticipated TIME trial.

The trial, which contradicts several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing may be better, was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. 

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

“The key message from this study is that taking antihypertensive medication in the evening makes no difference at all from taking it in the morning for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and vascular deaths,” concluded TIME lead investigator Tom MacDonald, MBChB, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology & pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee (Scotland).

The hazard ratio was 0.95 for the primary endpoint, a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or vascular death, in the intention-to-treat population.

Similar results, with a hazard ratio around 1, were seen for all the secondary outcomes and in all subgroups.

“There is nothing to see – not a smidge of a difference – in the primary outcome or any of the secondary outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald commented.

The study also showed that evening dosing was not harmful in terms of falls or other adverse effects. Dr. MacDonald explained that taking the medication at night could result in an increase in nocturnal hypotension that may translate into more dizziness and falls if patients get up to use the bathroom during the night. “But, if anything, there were more dizzy turns during the day. The rate of fractures and hospitalization for fractures were identical in the two groups,” he reported.

“Our take-home message is that patients can take their blood pressure tablets at any time they like – whenever is most convenient – as long as they take them. It’s probably best to get into a routine of taking your tablets at the same time every day. That way you are more likely to remember to take them – but it won’t matter if that is in the morning or in the evening,” he said. 

Non-dippers

Dr. MacDonald explained that the rationale for the study was that in some patients blood pressure does not drop at night, a group known as “non-dippers,” and nighttime blood pressure is the best predictor of bad outcomes. In addition, previous studies have suggested that evening dosing of antihypertensives reduces nighttime blood pressure more effectively than daytime dosing.

“We and others thought that giving medication in the evening so that its peak effect occurs during the night might be beneficial,” he said. “We did the trial because if it had turned out that taking tablets in the evening was beneficial, it would have been one of the cheapest and most cost-effective interventions known to man. It is a nice hypothesis and most people thought this would turn out with a benefit, but it actually didn’t.”

The study did find some differences in the blood pressure profile between the two dosing schedules.

“Our results show that when antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning, then blood pressure is higher in the morning and lower in the evening. With evening dosing, blood pressure is lower in the morning and higher in the evening. It’s not a huge difference – just 1-2 mm Hg – and this didn’t translate into any difference in outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald said. 

“Ideally we need medication that lowers blood pressure effectively over the whole 24-hour period. That is where the push should be,” he added.

The TIME study randomized 21,104 patients with treated hypertension to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or in the evening. Baseline characteristics show the average age of participants was 65 years, 14% had diabetes, 4% were smokers, 13% had prior cardiovascular disease, and mean blood pressure at entry was 135/79 mmHg.

TIME was a pragmatic study, with participants recruited from primary and secondary care registering on the Internet, and information on hospitalizations and deaths obtained from participants by email and through record linkage to national databases, with further data gathered from family doctors and hospitals and independently adjudicated by a blinded committee.

The median follow-up duration was 5.2 years, but some patients were followed for over 9 years.

The primary endpoint occurred in 362 (3.4%) participants in the evening-dosing group (0.69 events per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3.7%) in the morning-dosing group (0.72 events per 100 patient-years), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

What to recommend in clinical practice?

Outside commentators had mixed opinions on how the TIME results should be applied to clinical practice.

Discussant of the TIME study at the ESC Hotline session, Rhian Touyz, MBBCh, University of Glasgow (Scotland), said the trial asked a “very pertinent” question and the data “are certainly provocative.”

She cited several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing improved nighttime blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular events.

“The finding of no difference in event rate in the TIME study is therefore very intriguing.”

She pointed out that other studies have shown benefit of nighttime dosing in certain patient groups such as those with sleep apnea, non-dippers, and those with nocturnal hypertension.  

“With all these previous data, we have to ask why the TIME trial has produced this unexpected result,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald replied that the study was completely neutral. “That is the result, and I believe it is definitive. I’m absolutely confident that we did the study as best we could. All events were adjudicated. Compliance was quite good at 60%. I can’t believe there is anything in our data that invalidates these results,” he said. “If we want to look at specific groups of patients then we have to do larger studies in those particular groups, but for a general population of hypertensive patients we didn’t find any difference at all in morning versus evening dosing.”

The TIME results are in direct contradiction of a previous high-profile study – the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial – published in 2020, which found a large protective effect of nocturnal dosing on cardiovascular events, and attracted much media attention. But this study has subsequently attracted criticism, with an “expression of concern” and a commentary raising several questions. 

And a systematic review from the International Society of Hypertension published earlier this month concludes that previous trials of bedtime antihypertensive dosing had “major flaws.”

The review notes that three ongoing, well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing.

“Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose,” it concludes.

On the new TIME results, lead author of the ISH review, George Stergiou, MD, commented: “The benefits of bedtime dosing were not confirmed – as we well expected. So, I think bedtime drug dosing should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice.”

Although the TIME trial did not show any harms with bedtime dose, Dr. Stergiou added, “I am not too happy with their conclusion that patients should do as they wish. The vast majority of well-conducted outcomes studies which we use to guide the treatment of hypertension administered all drugs in the morning.”

One of the authors of the commentary criticizing the Hygia trial, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, MD, University of Oslo, said in an interview that the TIME trial was an important study, far more reliable than the Hygia study, and the results were as expected.

“From a scientific point of view, patients have a choice as to when to take their medication, but we strongly recommend taking blood pressure meds in the morning. Adherence is proven to be worse at bedtime. However, physicians may still consider bedtime dosing in patients proven to have high night-time blood pressure,” Dr. Kjeldsen added.

Lead investigator of the Hygia study, Ramón C. Hermida, PhD, University of Vigo (Spain), told this news organization he and his coauthors are standing by their results.

“The design and conduct of the TIME trial does not comply with the quality requirements listed in the guidelines by the International Society for Chronobiology for conducting chronotherapy trials in hypertension, and the results are not in line with the reported findings of multiple clinical trials on the effects of timed hypertension treatment on blood pressure control and circadian pattern regulation, kidney function, and cardiac pathology,” Dr. Hermida said.

Chair of an ESC press conference on the TIME study, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark, said he thought the trial was “very well done.”

The TIME results, he said, “are quite clear, whether you take your blood pressure tablets in the morning or the evening it makes no difference for the hard outcomes that we fear in patients with hypertension.  

“I think that this solves a question that we’ve had for a long time now,” he commented. “Even though there were some changes in the blood pressure measured in the evening or in the morning it doesn’t seem to matter in terms of clinical events. This means that life might be a bit easier for patients in that they can choose when they take their medication at the time most convenient to them.  

“I don’t know why previous studies suggested such a big benefit of evening dosing,” he added. “I would say the TIME trial is a more definitive result. It is a very important trial.”

Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, agreed that the TIME study was well conducted.

“On the basis of these results I wouldn’t recommend a specific time,” she said. “That’s kind of a relief, as it can be difficult to always take medications at a set time and this gives patients more flexibility.”

She suggested a possible alternative approach for patients taking more than one drug – taking one in the morning and the other in the evening. “That might give better 24-hour coverage.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. MacDonald has reported receiving research funding from Novartis and consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca.

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

BARCELONA – Patients with hypertension who took their antihypertensive medication in the evening or in the morning had similar rates of cardiovascular events over the following 5 years, in the much-anticipated TIME trial.

The trial, which contradicts several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing may be better, was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. 

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

“The key message from this study is that taking antihypertensive medication in the evening makes no difference at all from taking it in the morning for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and vascular deaths,” concluded TIME lead investigator Tom MacDonald, MBChB, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology & pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee (Scotland).

The hazard ratio was 0.95 for the primary endpoint, a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or vascular death, in the intention-to-treat population.

Similar results, with a hazard ratio around 1, were seen for all the secondary outcomes and in all subgroups.

“There is nothing to see – not a smidge of a difference – in the primary outcome or any of the secondary outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald commented.

The study also showed that evening dosing was not harmful in terms of falls or other adverse effects. Dr. MacDonald explained that taking the medication at night could result in an increase in nocturnal hypotension that may translate into more dizziness and falls if patients get up to use the bathroom during the night. “But, if anything, there were more dizzy turns during the day. The rate of fractures and hospitalization for fractures were identical in the two groups,” he reported.

“Our take-home message is that patients can take their blood pressure tablets at any time they like – whenever is most convenient – as long as they take them. It’s probably best to get into a routine of taking your tablets at the same time every day. That way you are more likely to remember to take them – but it won’t matter if that is in the morning or in the evening,” he said. 

Non-dippers

Dr. MacDonald explained that the rationale for the study was that in some patients blood pressure does not drop at night, a group known as “non-dippers,” and nighttime blood pressure is the best predictor of bad outcomes. In addition, previous studies have suggested that evening dosing of antihypertensives reduces nighttime blood pressure more effectively than daytime dosing.

“We and others thought that giving medication in the evening so that its peak effect occurs during the night might be beneficial,” he said. “We did the trial because if it had turned out that taking tablets in the evening was beneficial, it would have been one of the cheapest and most cost-effective interventions known to man. It is a nice hypothesis and most people thought this would turn out with a benefit, but it actually didn’t.”

The study did find some differences in the blood pressure profile between the two dosing schedules.

“Our results show that when antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning, then blood pressure is higher in the morning and lower in the evening. With evening dosing, blood pressure is lower in the morning and higher in the evening. It’s not a huge difference – just 1-2 mm Hg – and this didn’t translate into any difference in outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald said. 

“Ideally we need medication that lowers blood pressure effectively over the whole 24-hour period. That is where the push should be,” he added.

The TIME study randomized 21,104 patients with treated hypertension to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or in the evening. Baseline characteristics show the average age of participants was 65 years, 14% had diabetes, 4% were smokers, 13% had prior cardiovascular disease, and mean blood pressure at entry was 135/79 mmHg.

TIME was a pragmatic study, with participants recruited from primary and secondary care registering on the Internet, and information on hospitalizations and deaths obtained from participants by email and through record linkage to national databases, with further data gathered from family doctors and hospitals and independently adjudicated by a blinded committee.

The median follow-up duration was 5.2 years, but some patients were followed for over 9 years.

The primary endpoint occurred in 362 (3.4%) participants in the evening-dosing group (0.69 events per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3.7%) in the morning-dosing group (0.72 events per 100 patient-years), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

What to recommend in clinical practice?

Outside commentators had mixed opinions on how the TIME results should be applied to clinical practice.

Discussant of the TIME study at the ESC Hotline session, Rhian Touyz, MBBCh, University of Glasgow (Scotland), said the trial asked a “very pertinent” question and the data “are certainly provocative.”

She cited several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing improved nighttime blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular events.

“The finding of no difference in event rate in the TIME study is therefore very intriguing.”

She pointed out that other studies have shown benefit of nighttime dosing in certain patient groups such as those with sleep apnea, non-dippers, and those with nocturnal hypertension.  

“With all these previous data, we have to ask why the TIME trial has produced this unexpected result,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald replied that the study was completely neutral. “That is the result, and I believe it is definitive. I’m absolutely confident that we did the study as best we could. All events were adjudicated. Compliance was quite good at 60%. I can’t believe there is anything in our data that invalidates these results,” he said. “If we want to look at specific groups of patients then we have to do larger studies in those particular groups, but for a general population of hypertensive patients we didn’t find any difference at all in morning versus evening dosing.”

The TIME results are in direct contradiction of a previous high-profile study – the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial – published in 2020, which found a large protective effect of nocturnal dosing on cardiovascular events, and attracted much media attention. But this study has subsequently attracted criticism, with an “expression of concern” and a commentary raising several questions. 

And a systematic review from the International Society of Hypertension published earlier this month concludes that previous trials of bedtime antihypertensive dosing had “major flaws.”

The review notes that three ongoing, well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing.

“Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose,” it concludes.

On the new TIME results, lead author of the ISH review, George Stergiou, MD, commented: “The benefits of bedtime dosing were not confirmed – as we well expected. So, I think bedtime drug dosing should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice.”

Although the TIME trial did not show any harms with bedtime dose, Dr. Stergiou added, “I am not too happy with their conclusion that patients should do as they wish. The vast majority of well-conducted outcomes studies which we use to guide the treatment of hypertension administered all drugs in the morning.”

One of the authors of the commentary criticizing the Hygia trial, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, MD, University of Oslo, said in an interview that the TIME trial was an important study, far more reliable than the Hygia study, and the results were as expected.

“From a scientific point of view, patients have a choice as to when to take their medication, but we strongly recommend taking blood pressure meds in the morning. Adherence is proven to be worse at bedtime. However, physicians may still consider bedtime dosing in patients proven to have high night-time blood pressure,” Dr. Kjeldsen added.

Lead investigator of the Hygia study, Ramón C. Hermida, PhD, University of Vigo (Spain), told this news organization he and his coauthors are standing by their results.

“The design and conduct of the TIME trial does not comply with the quality requirements listed in the guidelines by the International Society for Chronobiology for conducting chronotherapy trials in hypertension, and the results are not in line with the reported findings of multiple clinical trials on the effects of timed hypertension treatment on blood pressure control and circadian pattern regulation, kidney function, and cardiac pathology,” Dr. Hermida said.

Chair of an ESC press conference on the TIME study, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark, said he thought the trial was “very well done.”

The TIME results, he said, “are quite clear, whether you take your blood pressure tablets in the morning or the evening it makes no difference for the hard outcomes that we fear in patients with hypertension.  

“I think that this solves a question that we’ve had for a long time now,” he commented. “Even though there were some changes in the blood pressure measured in the evening or in the morning it doesn’t seem to matter in terms of clinical events. This means that life might be a bit easier for patients in that they can choose when they take their medication at the time most convenient to them.  

“I don’t know why previous studies suggested such a big benefit of evening dosing,” he added. “I would say the TIME trial is a more definitive result. It is a very important trial.”

Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, agreed that the TIME study was well conducted.

“On the basis of these results I wouldn’t recommend a specific time,” she said. “That’s kind of a relief, as it can be difficult to always take medications at a set time and this gives patients more flexibility.”

She suggested a possible alternative approach for patients taking more than one drug – taking one in the morning and the other in the evening. “That might give better 24-hour coverage.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. MacDonald has reported receiving research funding from Novartis and consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca.

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

BARCELONA – Patients with hypertension who took their antihypertensive medication in the evening or in the morning had similar rates of cardiovascular events over the following 5 years, in the much-anticipated TIME trial.

The trial, which contradicts several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing may be better, was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. 

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

“The key message from this study is that taking antihypertensive medication in the evening makes no difference at all from taking it in the morning for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and vascular deaths,” concluded TIME lead investigator Tom MacDonald, MBChB, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology & pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee (Scotland).

The hazard ratio was 0.95 for the primary endpoint, a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or vascular death, in the intention-to-treat population.

Similar results, with a hazard ratio around 1, were seen for all the secondary outcomes and in all subgroups.

“There is nothing to see – not a smidge of a difference – in the primary outcome or any of the secondary outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald commented.

The study also showed that evening dosing was not harmful in terms of falls or other adverse effects. Dr. MacDonald explained that taking the medication at night could result in an increase in nocturnal hypotension that may translate into more dizziness and falls if patients get up to use the bathroom during the night. “But, if anything, there were more dizzy turns during the day. The rate of fractures and hospitalization for fractures were identical in the two groups,” he reported.

“Our take-home message is that patients can take their blood pressure tablets at any time they like – whenever is most convenient – as long as they take them. It’s probably best to get into a routine of taking your tablets at the same time every day. That way you are more likely to remember to take them – but it won’t matter if that is in the morning or in the evening,” he said. 

Non-dippers

Dr. MacDonald explained that the rationale for the study was that in some patients blood pressure does not drop at night, a group known as “non-dippers,” and nighttime blood pressure is the best predictor of bad outcomes. In addition, previous studies have suggested that evening dosing of antihypertensives reduces nighttime blood pressure more effectively than daytime dosing.

“We and others thought that giving medication in the evening so that its peak effect occurs during the night might be beneficial,” he said. “We did the trial because if it had turned out that taking tablets in the evening was beneficial, it would have been one of the cheapest and most cost-effective interventions known to man. It is a nice hypothesis and most people thought this would turn out with a benefit, but it actually didn’t.”

The study did find some differences in the blood pressure profile between the two dosing schedules.

“Our results show that when antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning, then blood pressure is higher in the morning and lower in the evening. With evening dosing, blood pressure is lower in the morning and higher in the evening. It’s not a huge difference – just 1-2 mm Hg – and this didn’t translate into any difference in outcomes,” Dr. MacDonald said. 

“Ideally we need medication that lowers blood pressure effectively over the whole 24-hour period. That is where the push should be,” he added.

The TIME study randomized 21,104 patients with treated hypertension to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or in the evening. Baseline characteristics show the average age of participants was 65 years, 14% had diabetes, 4% were smokers, 13% had prior cardiovascular disease, and mean blood pressure at entry was 135/79 mmHg.

TIME was a pragmatic study, with participants recruited from primary and secondary care registering on the Internet, and information on hospitalizations and deaths obtained from participants by email and through record linkage to national databases, with further data gathered from family doctors and hospitals and independently adjudicated by a blinded committee.

The median follow-up duration was 5.2 years, but some patients were followed for over 9 years.

The primary endpoint occurred in 362 (3.4%) participants in the evening-dosing group (0.69 events per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3.7%) in the morning-dosing group (0.72 events per 100 patient-years), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

What to recommend in clinical practice?

Outside commentators had mixed opinions on how the TIME results should be applied to clinical practice.

Discussant of the TIME study at the ESC Hotline session, Rhian Touyz, MBBCh, University of Glasgow (Scotland), said the trial asked a “very pertinent” question and the data “are certainly provocative.”

She cited several previous studies suggesting that evening dosing improved nighttime blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular events.

“The finding of no difference in event rate in the TIME study is therefore very intriguing.”

She pointed out that other studies have shown benefit of nighttime dosing in certain patient groups such as those with sleep apnea, non-dippers, and those with nocturnal hypertension.  

“With all these previous data, we have to ask why the TIME trial has produced this unexpected result,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald replied that the study was completely neutral. “That is the result, and I believe it is definitive. I’m absolutely confident that we did the study as best we could. All events were adjudicated. Compliance was quite good at 60%. I can’t believe there is anything in our data that invalidates these results,” he said. “If we want to look at specific groups of patients then we have to do larger studies in those particular groups, but for a general population of hypertensive patients we didn’t find any difference at all in morning versus evening dosing.”

The TIME results are in direct contradiction of a previous high-profile study – the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial – published in 2020, which found a large protective effect of nocturnal dosing on cardiovascular events, and attracted much media attention. But this study has subsequently attracted criticism, with an “expression of concern” and a commentary raising several questions. 

And a systematic review from the International Society of Hypertension published earlier this month concludes that previous trials of bedtime antihypertensive dosing had “major flaws.”

The review notes that three ongoing, well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing.

“Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose,” it concludes.

On the new TIME results, lead author of the ISH review, George Stergiou, MD, commented: “The benefits of bedtime dosing were not confirmed – as we well expected. So, I think bedtime drug dosing should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice.”

Although the TIME trial did not show any harms with bedtime dose, Dr. Stergiou added, “I am not too happy with their conclusion that patients should do as they wish. The vast majority of well-conducted outcomes studies which we use to guide the treatment of hypertension administered all drugs in the morning.”

One of the authors of the commentary criticizing the Hygia trial, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, MD, University of Oslo, said in an interview that the TIME trial was an important study, far more reliable than the Hygia study, and the results were as expected.

“From a scientific point of view, patients have a choice as to when to take their medication, but we strongly recommend taking blood pressure meds in the morning. Adherence is proven to be worse at bedtime. However, physicians may still consider bedtime dosing in patients proven to have high night-time blood pressure,” Dr. Kjeldsen added.

Lead investigator of the Hygia study, Ramón C. Hermida, PhD, University of Vigo (Spain), told this news organization he and his coauthors are standing by their results.

“The design and conduct of the TIME trial does not comply with the quality requirements listed in the guidelines by the International Society for Chronobiology for conducting chronotherapy trials in hypertension, and the results are not in line with the reported findings of multiple clinical trials on the effects of timed hypertension treatment on blood pressure control and circadian pattern regulation, kidney function, and cardiac pathology,” Dr. Hermida said.

Chair of an ESC press conference on the TIME study, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark, said he thought the trial was “very well done.”

The TIME results, he said, “are quite clear, whether you take your blood pressure tablets in the morning or the evening it makes no difference for the hard outcomes that we fear in patients with hypertension.  

“I think that this solves a question that we’ve had for a long time now,” he commented. “Even though there were some changes in the blood pressure measured in the evening or in the morning it doesn’t seem to matter in terms of clinical events. This means that life might be a bit easier for patients in that they can choose when they take their medication at the time most convenient to them.  

“I don’t know why previous studies suggested such a big benefit of evening dosing,” he added. “I would say the TIME trial is a more definitive result. It is a very important trial.”

Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, agreed that the TIME study was well conducted.

“On the basis of these results I wouldn’t recommend a specific time,” she said. “That’s kind of a relief, as it can be difficult to always take medications at a set time and this gives patients more flexibility.”

She suggested a possible alternative approach for patients taking more than one drug – taking one in the morning and the other in the evening. “That might give better 24-hour coverage.”

The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. MacDonald has reported receiving research funding from Novartis and consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca.

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

Adding salt to food at the table was linked to a higher risk of premature death and a lower life expectancy, independent of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and pre-existing diseases, in a new study.

In the study of more than 500,000 people, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, those who always added salt to their food had a 28% increased risk of dying prematurely (defined as death before the age of 75 years).

Results also showed that adding salt to food was linked to a lower life expectancy. At the age of 50 years, life expectancy was reduced by 1.5 years in women and by 2.28 years in men who always added salt to their food, compared with those who never or rarely did.

However, these increased risks appeared to be attenuated with increasing intakes of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

The study was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“As far as we are aware, this is the first study to analyze adding salt to meals as a unique measurement for dietary sodium intake. Such a measure is less likely affected by other dietary components, especially potassium intake,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“Our study provides supportive evidence from a novel perspective to show the adverse effects of high sodium intake on human health, which is still a controversial topic. Our findings support the advice that reduction of salt intake by reducing the salt added to meals may benefit health and improve life expectancy. Our results also suggest that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are beneficial regarding lowering the adverse effects of salt,” he added.
 

Link between dietary salt and health is subject of longstanding debate

The researchers explained that the relationship between dietary salt intake and health remains a subject of longstanding debate, with previous studies on the association between sodium intake and mortality having shown conflicting results.

They attributed the inconsistent results to the low accuracy of sodium measurement, noting that sodium intake varies widely from day to day, but the majority of previous studies have largely relied on a single day’s urine collection or dietary survey for estimating the sodium intake, which is inadequate to assess an individual’s usual consumption levels.

They also pointed out that it is difficult to separate the contributions of intakes of sodium and potassium to health based on current methods for measuring dietary sodium and  potassium, and this may confound the association between sodium intake and health outcomes.

They noted that the hypothesis that a high-potassium intake may attenuate the adverse association of high-sodium intake with health outcomes has been proposed for many years, but studies assessing the interaction between sodium intake and potassium intake on the risk of mortality are scarce.

Adding salt to food at the table is a common eating behavior directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty tasting foods and habitual salt intake, the authors said, adding that commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors including potassium. “Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a unique assessment to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality.”
 

UK Biobank study

For the current study Dr. Qi and colleagues analyzed data from 501,379 people taking part in the UK Biobank study. When joining the study between 2006 and 2010, the participants were asked whether they added salt to their foods never/rarely, sometimes, usually or always. Participants were then followed for a median of 9 years.

After adjustment for sex, age, race, smoking, moderate drinking, body mass index, physical activity, Townsend deprivation index, high cholesterol, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, results showed an increasing risk of all-cause premature mortality rose with increasing frequency of adding salt to foods.

The adjusted hazard ratios, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.06) for those who added salt sometimes, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11) for those who usually added salt, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20-1.35) for those who always added salt.

The researchers also estimated the lower survival time caused by the high frequency of adding salt to foods. At age 50, women who always added salt to foods had an average 1.50 fewer years of life expectancy, and men who always added salt had an average 2.28 fewer years of life expectancy, as compared with their counterparts who never/rarely added salt to foods.

For cause-specific premature mortality, results showed that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, but not for dementia mortality or respiratory mortality. For the subtypes of cardiovascular mortality, adding salt to foods was significantly associated with higher risk of stroke mortality but not coronary heart disease mortality.

Other analyses suggested that the association of adding salt to foods with an increased risk of premature mortality appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of food high in potassium (fruits and vegetables).

The authors point out that the amounts of discretionary sodium intake (the salt used at the table or in home cooking) have been largely overlooked in previous studies, even though adding salt to foods accounts for a considerable proportion of total sodium intake (6%-20%) in Western diets.

“Our findings also support the notion that even a modest reduction in sodium intake is likely to result in substantial health benefits, especially when it is achieved in the general population,” they conclude.
 

Conflicting information from different studies

But the current findings seem to directly contradict those from another recent study by Messerli and colleagues showing higher sodium intake correlates with improved life expectancy.

Addressing these contradictory results, Dr. Qi commented: “The study of Messerli et al. is based on an ecological design, in which the analysis is performed on country average sodium intake, rather than at the individual level. This type of ecological study has several major limitations, such as the lack of individuals’ sodium intake, uncontrolled confounding, and the cross-sectional nature. Typically, ecological studies are not considered useful for testing hypothesis in epidemiological studies.”

Dr. Qi noted that, in contrast, his current study analyzes individuals’ exposure, and has a prospective design. “Our findings are supported by previous large-scale observational studies and clinical trials which show the high intake of sodium may adversely affect chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and hypertension.” =

Lead author of the ecological study, Franz Messerli, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, however, was not convinced by the findings from Dr. Qi’s study.

“The difference in 24-hour sodium intake between those who never/rarely added salt and those who always did is a minuscule 0.17 g. It is highly unlikely that such negligible quantity has any impact on blood pressure, not to mention cardiovascular mortality or life expectancy,” he commented in an interview.

He also pointed out that, in Dr. Qi’s study, people who added salt more frequently also consumed more red meat and processed meat, as well as less fish and less fruit and vegetables. “I would suggest that the bad habit of adding salt at the table is simply a powerful marker for an unhealthy diet.”

“There is no question that an excessive salt intake is harmful in hypertensive patients and increases the risk of stroke. But 0.17 g is not going to make any difference,” Dr. Messerli added.
 

What is the optimum level?

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Qi and colleagues in the European Heart Journal, Annika Rosengren, MD, PhD, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, noted that guidelines recommend a salt intake below 5 g, or about a teaspoon, per day. But few individuals meet this recommendation.

Because several recent studies show a U- or J-shaped association between salt and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reducing salt intake across the whole population may not be universally beneficial, Dr. Rosengren said.

“So far, what the collective evidence about salt seems to indicate is that healthy people consuming what constitutes normal levels of ordinary salt need not worry too much about their salt intake,” she wrote.

Instead, she advised a diet rich in fruit and vegetables should be a priority to counterbalance potentially harmful effects of salt, and for many other reasons.

And she added that people at high risk, such as those with hypertension who have a high salt intake, are probably well advised to cut down, and not adding extra salt to already prepared foods is one way of achieving this. However, at the individual level, the optimal salt consumption range, or the “sweet spot” remains to be determined. 

“Not adding extra salt to food is unlikely to be harmful and could contribute to strategies to lower population blood pressure levels,” Dr. Rosengren concluded.

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

Adding salt to food at the table was linked to a higher risk of premature death and a lower life expectancy, independent of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and pre-existing diseases, in a new study.

In the study of more than 500,000 people, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, those who always added salt to their food had a 28% increased risk of dying prematurely (defined as death before the age of 75 years).

Results also showed that adding salt to food was linked to a lower life expectancy. At the age of 50 years, life expectancy was reduced by 1.5 years in women and by 2.28 years in men who always added salt to their food, compared with those who never or rarely did.

However, these increased risks appeared to be attenuated with increasing intakes of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

The study was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“As far as we are aware, this is the first study to analyze adding salt to meals as a unique measurement for dietary sodium intake. Such a measure is less likely affected by other dietary components, especially potassium intake,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“Our study provides supportive evidence from a novel perspective to show the adverse effects of high sodium intake on human health, which is still a controversial topic. Our findings support the advice that reduction of salt intake by reducing the salt added to meals may benefit health and improve life expectancy. Our results also suggest that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are beneficial regarding lowering the adverse effects of salt,” he added.
 

Link between dietary salt and health is subject of longstanding debate

The researchers explained that the relationship between dietary salt intake and health remains a subject of longstanding debate, with previous studies on the association between sodium intake and mortality having shown conflicting results.

They attributed the inconsistent results to the low accuracy of sodium measurement, noting that sodium intake varies widely from day to day, but the majority of previous studies have largely relied on a single day’s urine collection or dietary survey for estimating the sodium intake, which is inadequate to assess an individual’s usual consumption levels.

They also pointed out that it is difficult to separate the contributions of intakes of sodium and potassium to health based on current methods for measuring dietary sodium and  potassium, and this may confound the association between sodium intake and health outcomes.

They noted that the hypothesis that a high-potassium intake may attenuate the adverse association of high-sodium intake with health outcomes has been proposed for many years, but studies assessing the interaction between sodium intake and potassium intake on the risk of mortality are scarce.

Adding salt to food at the table is a common eating behavior directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty tasting foods and habitual salt intake, the authors said, adding that commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors including potassium. “Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a unique assessment to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality.”
 

UK Biobank study

For the current study Dr. Qi and colleagues analyzed data from 501,379 people taking part in the UK Biobank study. When joining the study between 2006 and 2010, the participants were asked whether they added salt to their foods never/rarely, sometimes, usually or always. Participants were then followed for a median of 9 years.

After adjustment for sex, age, race, smoking, moderate drinking, body mass index, physical activity, Townsend deprivation index, high cholesterol, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, results showed an increasing risk of all-cause premature mortality rose with increasing frequency of adding salt to foods.

The adjusted hazard ratios, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.06) for those who added salt sometimes, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11) for those who usually added salt, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20-1.35) for those who always added salt.

The researchers also estimated the lower survival time caused by the high frequency of adding salt to foods. At age 50, women who always added salt to foods had an average 1.50 fewer years of life expectancy, and men who always added salt had an average 2.28 fewer years of life expectancy, as compared with their counterparts who never/rarely added salt to foods.

For cause-specific premature mortality, results showed that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, but not for dementia mortality or respiratory mortality. For the subtypes of cardiovascular mortality, adding salt to foods was significantly associated with higher risk of stroke mortality but not coronary heart disease mortality.

Other analyses suggested that the association of adding salt to foods with an increased risk of premature mortality appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of food high in potassium (fruits and vegetables).

The authors point out that the amounts of discretionary sodium intake (the salt used at the table or in home cooking) have been largely overlooked in previous studies, even though adding salt to foods accounts for a considerable proportion of total sodium intake (6%-20%) in Western diets.

“Our findings also support the notion that even a modest reduction in sodium intake is likely to result in substantial health benefits, especially when it is achieved in the general population,” they conclude.
 

Conflicting information from different studies

But the current findings seem to directly contradict those from another recent study by Messerli and colleagues showing higher sodium intake correlates with improved life expectancy.

Addressing these contradictory results, Dr. Qi commented: “The study of Messerli et al. is based on an ecological design, in which the analysis is performed on country average sodium intake, rather than at the individual level. This type of ecological study has several major limitations, such as the lack of individuals’ sodium intake, uncontrolled confounding, and the cross-sectional nature. Typically, ecological studies are not considered useful for testing hypothesis in epidemiological studies.”

Dr. Qi noted that, in contrast, his current study analyzes individuals’ exposure, and has a prospective design. “Our findings are supported by previous large-scale observational studies and clinical trials which show the high intake of sodium may adversely affect chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and hypertension.” =

Lead author of the ecological study, Franz Messerli, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, however, was not convinced by the findings from Dr. Qi’s study.

“The difference in 24-hour sodium intake between those who never/rarely added salt and those who always did is a minuscule 0.17 g. It is highly unlikely that such negligible quantity has any impact on blood pressure, not to mention cardiovascular mortality or life expectancy,” he commented in an interview.

He also pointed out that, in Dr. Qi’s study, people who added salt more frequently also consumed more red meat and processed meat, as well as less fish and less fruit and vegetables. “I would suggest that the bad habit of adding salt at the table is simply a powerful marker for an unhealthy diet.”

“There is no question that an excessive salt intake is harmful in hypertensive patients and increases the risk of stroke. But 0.17 g is not going to make any difference,” Dr. Messerli added.
 

What is the optimum level?

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Qi and colleagues in the European Heart Journal, Annika Rosengren, MD, PhD, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, noted that guidelines recommend a salt intake below 5 g, or about a teaspoon, per day. But few individuals meet this recommendation.

Because several recent studies show a U- or J-shaped association between salt and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reducing salt intake across the whole population may not be universally beneficial, Dr. Rosengren said.

“So far, what the collective evidence about salt seems to indicate is that healthy people consuming what constitutes normal levels of ordinary salt need not worry too much about their salt intake,” she wrote.

Instead, she advised a diet rich in fruit and vegetables should be a priority to counterbalance potentially harmful effects of salt, and for many other reasons.

And she added that people at high risk, such as those with hypertension who have a high salt intake, are probably well advised to cut down, and not adding extra salt to already prepared foods is one way of achieving this. However, at the individual level, the optimal salt consumption range, or the “sweet spot” remains to be determined. 

“Not adding extra salt to food is unlikely to be harmful and could contribute to strategies to lower population blood pressure levels,” Dr. Rosengren concluded.

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

Adding salt to food at the table was linked to a higher risk of premature death and a lower life expectancy, independent of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and pre-existing diseases, in a new study.

In the study of more than 500,000 people, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, those who always added salt to their food had a 28% increased risk of dying prematurely (defined as death before the age of 75 years).

Results also showed that adding salt to food was linked to a lower life expectancy. At the age of 50 years, life expectancy was reduced by 1.5 years in women and by 2.28 years in men who always added salt to their food, compared with those who never or rarely did.

However, these increased risks appeared to be attenuated with increasing intakes of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

The study was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“As far as we are aware, this is the first study to analyze adding salt to meals as a unique measurement for dietary sodium intake. Such a measure is less likely affected by other dietary components, especially potassium intake,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“Our study provides supportive evidence from a novel perspective to show the adverse effects of high sodium intake on human health, which is still a controversial topic. Our findings support the advice that reduction of salt intake by reducing the salt added to meals may benefit health and improve life expectancy. Our results also suggest that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are beneficial regarding lowering the adverse effects of salt,” he added.
 

Link between dietary salt and health is subject of longstanding debate

The researchers explained that the relationship between dietary salt intake and health remains a subject of longstanding debate, with previous studies on the association between sodium intake and mortality having shown conflicting results.

They attributed the inconsistent results to the low accuracy of sodium measurement, noting that sodium intake varies widely from day to day, but the majority of previous studies have largely relied on a single day’s urine collection or dietary survey for estimating the sodium intake, which is inadequate to assess an individual’s usual consumption levels.

They also pointed out that it is difficult to separate the contributions of intakes of sodium and potassium to health based on current methods for measuring dietary sodium and  potassium, and this may confound the association between sodium intake and health outcomes.

They noted that the hypothesis that a high-potassium intake may attenuate the adverse association of high-sodium intake with health outcomes has been proposed for many years, but studies assessing the interaction between sodium intake and potassium intake on the risk of mortality are scarce.

Adding salt to food at the table is a common eating behavior directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty tasting foods and habitual salt intake, the authors said, adding that commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors including potassium. “Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a unique assessment to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality.”
 

UK Biobank study

For the current study Dr. Qi and colleagues analyzed data from 501,379 people taking part in the UK Biobank study. When joining the study between 2006 and 2010, the participants were asked whether they added salt to their foods never/rarely, sometimes, usually or always. Participants were then followed for a median of 9 years.

After adjustment for sex, age, race, smoking, moderate drinking, body mass index, physical activity, Townsend deprivation index, high cholesterol, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, results showed an increasing risk of all-cause premature mortality rose with increasing frequency of adding salt to foods.

The adjusted hazard ratios, compared with those who never or rarely added salt, were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.06) for those who added salt sometimes, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11) for those who usually added salt, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20-1.35) for those who always added salt.

The researchers also estimated the lower survival time caused by the high frequency of adding salt to foods. At age 50, women who always added salt to foods had an average 1.50 fewer years of life expectancy, and men who always added salt had an average 2.28 fewer years of life expectancy, as compared with their counterparts who never/rarely added salt to foods.

For cause-specific premature mortality, results showed that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, but not for dementia mortality or respiratory mortality. For the subtypes of cardiovascular mortality, adding salt to foods was significantly associated with higher risk of stroke mortality but not coronary heart disease mortality.

Other analyses suggested that the association of adding salt to foods with an increased risk of premature mortality appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of food high in potassium (fruits and vegetables).

The authors point out that the amounts of discretionary sodium intake (the salt used at the table or in home cooking) have been largely overlooked in previous studies, even though adding salt to foods accounts for a considerable proportion of total sodium intake (6%-20%) in Western diets.

“Our findings also support the notion that even a modest reduction in sodium intake is likely to result in substantial health benefits, especially when it is achieved in the general population,” they conclude.
 

Conflicting information from different studies

But the current findings seem to directly contradict those from another recent study by Messerli and colleagues showing higher sodium intake correlates with improved life expectancy.

Addressing these contradictory results, Dr. Qi commented: “The study of Messerli et al. is based on an ecological design, in which the analysis is performed on country average sodium intake, rather than at the individual level. This type of ecological study has several major limitations, such as the lack of individuals’ sodium intake, uncontrolled confounding, and the cross-sectional nature. Typically, ecological studies are not considered useful for testing hypothesis in epidemiological studies.”

Dr. Qi noted that, in contrast, his current study analyzes individuals’ exposure, and has a prospective design. “Our findings are supported by previous large-scale observational studies and clinical trials which show the high intake of sodium may adversely affect chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and hypertension.” =

Lead author of the ecological study, Franz Messerli, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, however, was not convinced by the findings from Dr. Qi’s study.

“The difference in 24-hour sodium intake between those who never/rarely added salt and those who always did is a minuscule 0.17 g. It is highly unlikely that such negligible quantity has any impact on blood pressure, not to mention cardiovascular mortality or life expectancy,” he commented in an interview.

He also pointed out that, in Dr. Qi’s study, people who added salt more frequently also consumed more red meat and processed meat, as well as less fish and less fruit and vegetables. “I would suggest that the bad habit of adding salt at the table is simply a powerful marker for an unhealthy diet.”

“There is no question that an excessive salt intake is harmful in hypertensive patients and increases the risk of stroke. But 0.17 g is not going to make any difference,” Dr. Messerli added.
 

What is the optimum level?

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Qi and colleagues in the European Heart Journal, Annika Rosengren, MD, PhD, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, noted that guidelines recommend a salt intake below 5 g, or about a teaspoon, per day. But few individuals meet this recommendation.

Because several recent studies show a U- or J-shaped association between salt and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reducing salt intake across the whole population may not be universally beneficial, Dr. Rosengren said.

“So far, what the collective evidence about salt seems to indicate is that healthy people consuming what constitutes normal levels of ordinary salt need not worry too much about their salt intake,” she wrote.

Instead, she advised a diet rich in fruit and vegetables should be a priority to counterbalance potentially harmful effects of salt, and for many other reasons.

And she added that people at high risk, such as those with hypertension who have a high salt intake, are probably well advised to cut down, and not adding extra salt to already prepared foods is one way of achieving this. However, at the individual level, the optimal salt consumption range, or the “sweet spot” remains to be determined. 

“Not adding extra salt to food is unlikely to be harmful and could contribute to strategies to lower population blood pressure levels,” Dr. Rosengren concluded.

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