Ted Bosworth

A phase 3 trial has associated the neurokinin-3 (NK3)–receptor inhibitor fezolinetant, an oral therapy taken once daily, with substantial control over the symptoms of menopause, according to results of the randomized SKYLIGHT 2 trial.

The nonhormonal therapy has the potential to address an important unmet need, Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The health risks of hormone therapy (HT) have “caused quite a few women to consider whether hormone replacement is right for them, and, in addition, there are other individuals who have hormone-responsive cancers or other disorders that might prohibit them [from using HT],” Dr. Neal-Perry said.

The NK3 receptor stimulates the thermoregulatory center in the hypothalamus. By blocking the NK3 receptor, vasodilation and other downstream effects are inhibited, explained Dr. Neal-Perry. She credited relatively recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of menopausal symptoms for identifying this and other potentially targetable mediators.

SKYLIGHT 2 trial: Two phases

In the double-blind multinational phase 3 SKYLIGHT 2 trial, 484 otherwise healthy symptomatic menopausal women were randomized to 30 mg of fezolinetant, 45 mg of fezolinetant, or placebo. The 120 participating centers were in North American and Europe.

In the first phase, safety and efficacy were evaluated over 12 weeks. In a second extension phase, placebo patients were rerandomized to one of the fezolinetant study doses. Those on active therapy remained in their assigned groups. All patients were then followed for an additional 40 weeks.

The coprimary endpoints were frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as reported by patients using an electronic diary. There were several secondary endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes regarding sleep quality.

As expected from other controlled trials, placebo patients achieved about a 40% reduction in moderate to severe vasomotor symptom frequency over the first 12 weeks. Relative to placebo, symptom frequency declined more quickly and steeply on fezolinetant. By week 12, both achieved reductions of about 60%. Statistical P values for the differences in the three arms were not provided, but Dr. Neal-Perry reported they were significant.

Vasomotor severity, like frequency, is reduced

The change in vasomotor severity, which subjects in the trial rated as better or worse, was also significant. The differences in the severity curves were less, but they separated in favor of the two active treatment arms by about 2 weeks, and the curves continued to show an advantage for fezolinetant over both the first 12 weeks and then the remaining 40 weeks.

Overall, the decline in vasomotor symptom frequency remained on a persistent downward slope on both doses of fezolinetant for the full 52 weeks of the study, so that the reduction at 52 weeks was on the order of 25% greater than that seen at 12 weeks.

At 52 weeks, “you can see that individuals on placebo who were crossed over to an active treatment had a significant reduction in their hot flashes and look very much like those who were randomized to fezolinetant at the beginning of the study,” said Dr. Neal-Perry, who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Other outcomes also favored fezolinetant over placebo. For example, a reduction in sleep disturbance observed at 12 weeks was sustained over the full 52 weeks of the study. The reduction in sleep symptoms appeared to be slightly greater on the higher dose, but the benefit at 52 weeks among patients after the crossover was similar on either active arm.

No serious side effects identified

There were no serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events in any treatment group. One patient in the placebo arm (< 1%), two patients in the 30-mg fezolinetant arm (1.2%), and five patients in the 45-mg arm (3%) discontinued therapy for an adverse event considered to be treatment related.

“The most common side effect associated with fezolinetant was headache. There were no other side effects that led patients to pull out of the study,” Dr. Neal-Perry reported at the meeting, which was held in Atlanta and virtually.

According to Dr. Neal-Perry the vasomotor symptoms relative to menopause, which occur in almost all women, are moderate to severe in an estimated 35%-45%. Some groups, such as those with an elevated body mass index and African Americans, appear to be at even greater risk. Study enrollment was specifically designed to include these high-risk groups, but the subgroup efficacy data have not yet been analyzed.

Other drugs with a similar mechanism of action have not been brought forward because of concern about elevated liver enzymes, but Dr. Neal-Perry said that this does not appear to be an issue for fezolinetant, which was designed with greater specificity for the NK3 target than previous treatments.

If fezolinetant is approved, Dr. Neal-Perry expects this agent to fulfill an important unmet need because of the limitations of other nonhormonal solutions for control of menopause symptoms.

HT alternatives limited

For control of many menopause symptoms, particularly hot flashes, hormone therapy (HT) is the most efficacious, but Richard J. Santen, MD, emeritus professor and an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, agreed there is a need for alternatives.

In addition to those who have contraindications for HT, Dr. Santen said in an interview that this option is not acceptable to others “for a variety of reasons.” The problem is that the alternatives are limited.

“The SSRI agents and gabapentin are alternative nonhormonal agents, but they have side effects and are not as effective,” he said. Hot flashes “can be a major disruptor of quality of life,” so he is intrigued with the positive results achieved with fezolinetant.

“A new drug such as reported at the Endocrine Society meeting would be an important new addition to the armamentarium,” he said.

Dr. Neal-Perry reports no conflicts of interest.

A phase 3 trial has associated the neurokinin-3 (NK3)–receptor inhibitor fezolinetant, an oral therapy taken once daily, with substantial control over the symptoms of menopause, according to results of the randomized SKYLIGHT 2 trial.

The nonhormonal therapy has the potential to address an important unmet need, Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The health risks of hormone therapy (HT) have “caused quite a few women to consider whether hormone replacement is right for them, and, in addition, there are other individuals who have hormone-responsive cancers or other disorders that might prohibit them [from using HT],” Dr. Neal-Perry said.

The NK3 receptor stimulates the thermoregulatory center in the hypothalamus. By blocking the NK3 receptor, vasodilation and other downstream effects are inhibited, explained Dr. Neal-Perry. She credited relatively recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of menopausal symptoms for identifying this and other potentially targetable mediators.

SKYLIGHT 2 trial: Two phases

In the double-blind multinational phase 3 SKYLIGHT 2 trial, 484 otherwise healthy symptomatic menopausal women were randomized to 30 mg of fezolinetant, 45 mg of fezolinetant, or placebo. The 120 participating centers were in North American and Europe.

In the first phase, safety and efficacy were evaluated over 12 weeks. In a second extension phase, placebo patients were rerandomized to one of the fezolinetant study doses. Those on active therapy remained in their assigned groups. All patients were then followed for an additional 40 weeks.

The coprimary endpoints were frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as reported by patients using an electronic diary. There were several secondary endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes regarding sleep quality.

As expected from other controlled trials, placebo patients achieved about a 40% reduction in moderate to severe vasomotor symptom frequency over the first 12 weeks. Relative to placebo, symptom frequency declined more quickly and steeply on fezolinetant. By week 12, both achieved reductions of about 60%. Statistical P values for the differences in the three arms were not provided, but Dr. Neal-Perry reported they were significant.

Vasomotor severity, like frequency, is reduced

The change in vasomotor severity, which subjects in the trial rated as better or worse, was also significant. The differences in the severity curves were less, but they separated in favor of the two active treatment arms by about 2 weeks, and the curves continued to show an advantage for fezolinetant over both the first 12 weeks and then the remaining 40 weeks.

Overall, the decline in vasomotor symptom frequency remained on a persistent downward slope on both doses of fezolinetant for the full 52 weeks of the study, so that the reduction at 52 weeks was on the order of 25% greater than that seen at 12 weeks.

At 52 weeks, “you can see that individuals on placebo who were crossed over to an active treatment had a significant reduction in their hot flashes and look very much like those who were randomized to fezolinetant at the beginning of the study,” said Dr. Neal-Perry, who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Other outcomes also favored fezolinetant over placebo. For example, a reduction in sleep disturbance observed at 12 weeks was sustained over the full 52 weeks of the study. The reduction in sleep symptoms appeared to be slightly greater on the higher dose, but the benefit at 52 weeks among patients after the crossover was similar on either active arm.

No serious side effects identified

There were no serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events in any treatment group. One patient in the placebo arm (< 1%), two patients in the 30-mg fezolinetant arm (1.2%), and five patients in the 45-mg arm (3%) discontinued therapy for an adverse event considered to be treatment related.

“The most common side effect associated with fezolinetant was headache. There were no other side effects that led patients to pull out of the study,” Dr. Neal-Perry reported at the meeting, which was held in Atlanta and virtually.

According to Dr. Neal-Perry the vasomotor symptoms relative to menopause, which occur in almost all women, are moderate to severe in an estimated 35%-45%. Some groups, such as those with an elevated body mass index and African Americans, appear to be at even greater risk. Study enrollment was specifically designed to include these high-risk groups, but the subgroup efficacy data have not yet been analyzed.

Other drugs with a similar mechanism of action have not been brought forward because of concern about elevated liver enzymes, but Dr. Neal-Perry said that this does not appear to be an issue for fezolinetant, which was designed with greater specificity for the NK3 target than previous treatments.

If fezolinetant is approved, Dr. Neal-Perry expects this agent to fulfill an important unmet need because of the limitations of other nonhormonal solutions for control of menopause symptoms.

HT alternatives limited

For control of many menopause symptoms, particularly hot flashes, hormone therapy (HT) is the most efficacious, but Richard J. Santen, MD, emeritus professor and an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, agreed there is a need for alternatives.

In addition to those who have contraindications for HT, Dr. Santen said in an interview that this option is not acceptable to others “for a variety of reasons.” The problem is that the alternatives are limited.

“The SSRI agents and gabapentin are alternative nonhormonal agents, but they have side effects and are not as effective,” he said. Hot flashes “can be a major disruptor of quality of life,” so he is intrigued with the positive results achieved with fezolinetant.

“A new drug such as reported at the Endocrine Society meeting would be an important new addition to the armamentarium,” he said.

Dr. Neal-Perry reports no conflicts of interest.

A phase 3 trial has associated the neurokinin-3 (NK3)–receptor inhibitor fezolinetant, an oral therapy taken once daily, with substantial control over the symptoms of menopause, according to results of the randomized SKYLIGHT 2 trial.

The nonhormonal therapy has the potential to address an important unmet need, Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The health risks of hormone therapy (HT) have “caused quite a few women to consider whether hormone replacement is right for them, and, in addition, there are other individuals who have hormone-responsive cancers or other disorders that might prohibit them [from using HT],” Dr. Neal-Perry said.

The NK3 receptor stimulates the thermoregulatory center in the hypothalamus. By blocking the NK3 receptor, vasodilation and other downstream effects are inhibited, explained Dr. Neal-Perry. She credited relatively recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of menopausal symptoms for identifying this and other potentially targetable mediators.

SKYLIGHT 2 trial: Two phases

In the double-blind multinational phase 3 SKYLIGHT 2 trial, 484 otherwise healthy symptomatic menopausal women were randomized to 30 mg of fezolinetant, 45 mg of fezolinetant, or placebo. The 120 participating centers were in North American and Europe.

In the first phase, safety and efficacy were evaluated over 12 weeks. In a second extension phase, placebo patients were rerandomized to one of the fezolinetant study doses. Those on active therapy remained in their assigned groups. All patients were then followed for an additional 40 weeks.

The coprimary endpoints were frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as reported by patients using an electronic diary. There were several secondary endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes regarding sleep quality.

As expected from other controlled trials, placebo patients achieved about a 40% reduction in moderate to severe vasomotor symptom frequency over the first 12 weeks. Relative to placebo, symptom frequency declined more quickly and steeply on fezolinetant. By week 12, both achieved reductions of about 60%. Statistical P values for the differences in the three arms were not provided, but Dr. Neal-Perry reported they were significant.

Vasomotor severity, like frequency, is reduced

The change in vasomotor severity, which subjects in the trial rated as better or worse, was also significant. The differences in the severity curves were less, but they separated in favor of the two active treatment arms by about 2 weeks, and the curves continued to show an advantage for fezolinetant over both the first 12 weeks and then the remaining 40 weeks.

Overall, the decline in vasomotor symptom frequency remained on a persistent downward slope on both doses of fezolinetant for the full 52 weeks of the study, so that the reduction at 52 weeks was on the order of 25% greater than that seen at 12 weeks.

At 52 weeks, “you can see that individuals on placebo who were crossed over to an active treatment had a significant reduction in their hot flashes and look very much like those who were randomized to fezolinetant at the beginning of the study,” said Dr. Neal-Perry, who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Other outcomes also favored fezolinetant over placebo. For example, a reduction in sleep disturbance observed at 12 weeks was sustained over the full 52 weeks of the study. The reduction in sleep symptoms appeared to be slightly greater on the higher dose, but the benefit at 52 weeks among patients after the crossover was similar on either active arm.

No serious side effects identified

There were no serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events in any treatment group. One patient in the placebo arm (< 1%), two patients in the 30-mg fezolinetant arm (1.2%), and five patients in the 45-mg arm (3%) discontinued therapy for an adverse event considered to be treatment related.

“The most common side effect associated with fezolinetant was headache. There were no other side effects that led patients to pull out of the study,” Dr. Neal-Perry reported at the meeting, which was held in Atlanta and virtually.

According to Dr. Neal-Perry the vasomotor symptoms relative to menopause, which occur in almost all women, are moderate to severe in an estimated 35%-45%. Some groups, such as those with an elevated body mass index and African Americans, appear to be at even greater risk. Study enrollment was specifically designed to include these high-risk groups, but the subgroup efficacy data have not yet been analyzed.

Other drugs with a similar mechanism of action have not been brought forward because of concern about elevated liver enzymes, but Dr. Neal-Perry said that this does not appear to be an issue for fezolinetant, which was designed with greater specificity for the NK3 target than previous treatments.

If fezolinetant is approved, Dr. Neal-Perry expects this agent to fulfill an important unmet need because of the limitations of other nonhormonal solutions for control of menopause symptoms.

HT alternatives limited

For control of many menopause symptoms, particularly hot flashes, hormone therapy (HT) is the most efficacious, but Richard J. Santen, MD, emeritus professor and an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, agreed there is a need for alternatives.

In addition to those who have contraindications for HT, Dr. Santen said in an interview that this option is not acceptable to others “for a variety of reasons.” The problem is that the alternatives are limited.

“The SSRI agents and gabapentin are alternative nonhormonal agents, but they have side effects and are not as effective,” he said. Hot flashes “can be a major disruptor of quality of life,” so he is intrigued with the positive results achieved with fezolinetant.

“A new drug such as reported at the Endocrine Society meeting would be an important new addition to the armamentarium,” he said.

Dr. Neal-Perry reports no conflicts of interest.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

ATLANTA – Potential once-daily male oral contraceptives have passed a first clinical hurdle, showing a degree of testosterone suppression that should be sufficient for a contraceptive effect without causing symptomatic hypogonadism, according to phase 1 study results to be presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Credit: Flickr/Marco Verch Professional Photographer/CC by 2.0

There are two pills in development and the studies so far suggest that both or a combination might be able to provide an acceptable balance of efficacy and tolerability, according to Tamar Jacobsohn, a researcher in the Contraceptive Development Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md.

The two drugs evaluated in this study are dimethandrolone undecanoate (DMAU) and 11b-methyl-19-nortestosterone-17b-dodecylcarbonate (11b-MNTDC). Both are bifunctional prodrugs with androgenic and progestogenic effects. The prodrugs are designed to be cleaved after ingestion so that the active hormones are released over 24 hours, permitting once-daily dosing.

“As potent androgens, these steroids suppress gonadotropin secretion, leading to markedly decreased serum testosterone production,” explained Ms. Jacobsohn in an interview.

However, she noted that there is still a long way to go on this research path. While the phase 1 studies have shown tolerability, the biology involved in suppressing sperm production suggests that men would need to take these pills daily for about 3 months at the very beginning of contraceptive treatment, until adequate sperm suppression is achieved to prevent pregnancy.

“We are working toward a phase 2 trial that will include a contraceptive efficacy endpoint, but there are lots of steps to get there, including more early phase studies,” she noted.

“There is a huge unmet need in terms of male contraceptive methods,” said Arthi Thirumalai, MBBS, an endocrinologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

Senior author of a 2020 review article on male contraception, Dr. Thirumalai said in an interview that prodrugs and other hormonal methods to lower testosterone and suppress sperm production are attractive because of convenience, efficacy, and reversibility,

“We hope that oral formulations can be used to address this need,” said Dr. Thirumalai, who has participated in several experimental and clinical studies of male contraception methods. She is, in fact, one of the many coauthors of the data presented by Ms. Jacobsohn.

Ms. Jacobsohn emphasized: “Development of an effective, reversible male contraceptive method will improve reproductive options for men and women, have a major impact on public health by decreasing unintended pregnancy, and allow men to have an increasingly active role in family planning.”

Phase 1 results with DMAU and MNTDC

The work that led to phase 1 studies suggested that each of the drugs — DMAU and MNTDC — might provide adequate hormone suppression to reduce sperm counts without inducing unacceptable symptoms of hypogonadism. To test this potential, dose-ranging phase 1 studies with an endpoint of testosterone suppression were conducted with each one.

In the two placebo-controlled phase 1a studies, which are to be presented in a poster on June 13, healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to two pills of active therapy, four pills of active therapy, or placebo. In the two studies combined, 39 subjects received DMAU, 30 received 11b-MNTDC, and 28 received placebo.

Efficacy was evaluated by measuring testosterone levels. Tolerability was largely based on patient questionnaires.

At the end of 7 days, testosterone levels remained at reference levels (400 to 600 ng/dL) in those who received placebo. The levels fell to less than 100 ng/dL in all subjects assigned to an active agent regardless of which agent or dose was used.

From day 7 to 28, there was less median suppression of testosterone on 200 mg than 400 mg daily (92.7 ng/dL vs. 49.6 ng/dL; P < .001), but both remained below the target of 100 ng/dL, Ms. Jacobsohn reported.

The difference in degree of testosterone suppression did not appear to influence tolerability.

Subjects on four vs. two daily pills “did not report a significant difference in general satisfaction or their willingness to use the pills in the future or recommend them to other men,” said Ms. Jacobson, presenting P values for these outcomes among subjects on active therapy relative to placebo that were not significant, ranging from 0.48 to 0.85.

Overall, there were no serious adverse events. Mild side effects associated with hypogonadism did occur, but “all resolved by the end of the study,” she said.

Zero sperm production is not the goal. Lowering it sufficiently is

Dr. Thirumalai said the need for a male contraceptive is strong. While condoms have a substantial failure rate, vasectomy is not reliably reversible even though the majority of men agree that the responsibility for preventing pregnancy should be shared, she said.

Dr. Thirumalai’s earlier review article found that clinical trials of hormonal suppression to provide male contraception have been conducted for at least 30 years. The challenge has been finding an effective therapy that is well tolerated.

Drugs that combine both androgenic and progestogenic activity might be the answer. By manipulating hormones that lower testosterone, sperm production is reduced without eliminating a man’s ability to ejaculate. Zero sperm production is not the goal, according to data in Dr. Thirumalai’s review article.

Rather, studies suggest that when ejaculate contains less than 1 million sperm per mL (levels typically range from 15 to 200 million sperm/mL), the antipregnancy efficacy is similar to that achieved with female oral contraceptives.

However, clinical trials to demonstrate that this can be achieved safely have yet to be conducted.

Ms. Jacobsohn said that sperm half-life is about 3 months. This means that patients would need to be on hormonal therapy for a period of about this duration before reliable contraception is achieved.

In other words, the efficacy endpoint used in this current study [of 28 days duration] does not ensure effective contraception, but Ms. Jacobsohn suggested this is nevertheless an important step forward in clinical development.

Ms. Jacobsohn and Dr. Thirumalai report no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Potential once-daily male oral contraceptives have passed a first clinical hurdle, showing a degree of testosterone suppression that should be sufficient for a contraceptive effect without causing symptomatic hypogonadism, according to phase 1 study results to be presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Credit: Flickr/Marco Verch Professional Photographer/CC by 2.0

There are two pills in development and the studies so far suggest that both or a combination might be able to provide an acceptable balance of efficacy and tolerability, according to Tamar Jacobsohn, a researcher in the Contraceptive Development Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md.

The two drugs evaluated in this study are dimethandrolone undecanoate (DMAU) and 11b-methyl-19-nortestosterone-17b-dodecylcarbonate (11b-MNTDC). Both are bifunctional prodrugs with androgenic and progestogenic effects. The prodrugs are designed to be cleaved after ingestion so that the active hormones are released over 24 hours, permitting once-daily dosing.

“As potent androgens, these steroids suppress gonadotropin secretion, leading to markedly decreased serum testosterone production,” explained Ms. Jacobsohn in an interview.

However, she noted that there is still a long way to go on this research path. While the phase 1 studies have shown tolerability, the biology involved in suppressing sperm production suggests that men would need to take these pills daily for about 3 months at the very beginning of contraceptive treatment, until adequate sperm suppression is achieved to prevent pregnancy.

“We are working toward a phase 2 trial that will include a contraceptive efficacy endpoint, but there are lots of steps to get there, including more early phase studies,” she noted.

“There is a huge unmet need in terms of male contraceptive methods,” said Arthi Thirumalai, MBBS, an endocrinologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

Senior author of a 2020 review article on male contraception, Dr. Thirumalai said in an interview that prodrugs and other hormonal methods to lower testosterone and suppress sperm production are attractive because of convenience, efficacy, and reversibility,

“We hope that oral formulations can be used to address this need,” said Dr. Thirumalai, who has participated in several experimental and clinical studies of male contraception methods. She is, in fact, one of the many coauthors of the data presented by Ms. Jacobsohn.

Ms. Jacobsohn emphasized: “Development of an effective, reversible male contraceptive method will improve reproductive options for men and women, have a major impact on public health by decreasing unintended pregnancy, and allow men to have an increasingly active role in family planning.”

Phase 1 results with DMAU and MNTDC

The work that led to phase 1 studies suggested that each of the drugs — DMAU and MNTDC — might provide adequate hormone suppression to reduce sperm counts without inducing unacceptable symptoms of hypogonadism. To test this potential, dose-ranging phase 1 studies with an endpoint of testosterone suppression were conducted with each one.

In the two placebo-controlled phase 1a studies, which are to be presented in a poster on June 13, healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to two pills of active therapy, four pills of active therapy, or placebo. In the two studies combined, 39 subjects received DMAU, 30 received 11b-MNTDC, and 28 received placebo.

Efficacy was evaluated by measuring testosterone levels. Tolerability was largely based on patient questionnaires.

At the end of 7 days, testosterone levels remained at reference levels (400 to 600 ng/dL) in those who received placebo. The levels fell to less than 100 ng/dL in all subjects assigned to an active agent regardless of which agent or dose was used.

From day 7 to 28, there was less median suppression of testosterone on 200 mg than 400 mg daily (92.7 ng/dL vs. 49.6 ng/dL; P < .001), but both remained below the target of 100 ng/dL, Ms. Jacobsohn reported.

The difference in degree of testosterone suppression did not appear to influence tolerability.

Subjects on four vs. two daily pills “did not report a significant difference in general satisfaction or their willingness to use the pills in the future or recommend them to other men,” said Ms. Jacobson, presenting P values for these outcomes among subjects on active therapy relative to placebo that were not significant, ranging from 0.48 to 0.85.

Overall, there were no serious adverse events. Mild side effects associated with hypogonadism did occur, but “all resolved by the end of the study,” she said.

Zero sperm production is not the goal. Lowering it sufficiently is

Dr. Thirumalai said the need for a male contraceptive is strong. While condoms have a substantial failure rate, vasectomy is not reliably reversible even though the majority of men agree that the responsibility for preventing pregnancy should be shared, she said.

Dr. Thirumalai’s earlier review article found that clinical trials of hormonal suppression to provide male contraception have been conducted for at least 30 years. The challenge has been finding an effective therapy that is well tolerated.

Drugs that combine both androgenic and progestogenic activity might be the answer. By manipulating hormones that lower testosterone, sperm production is reduced without eliminating a man’s ability to ejaculate. Zero sperm production is not the goal, according to data in Dr. Thirumalai’s review article.

Rather, studies suggest that when ejaculate contains less than 1 million sperm per mL (levels typically range from 15 to 200 million sperm/mL), the antipregnancy efficacy is similar to that achieved with female oral contraceptives.

However, clinical trials to demonstrate that this can be achieved safely have yet to be conducted.

Ms. Jacobsohn said that sperm half-life is about 3 months. This means that patients would need to be on hormonal therapy for a period of about this duration before reliable contraception is achieved.

In other words, the efficacy endpoint used in this current study [of 28 days duration] does not ensure effective contraception, but Ms. Jacobsohn suggested this is nevertheless an important step forward in clinical development.

Ms. Jacobsohn and Dr. Thirumalai report no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Potential once-daily male oral contraceptives have passed a first clinical hurdle, showing a degree of testosterone suppression that should be sufficient for a contraceptive effect without causing symptomatic hypogonadism, according to phase 1 study results to be presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Credit: Flickr/Marco Verch Professional Photographer/CC by 2.0

There are two pills in development and the studies so far suggest that both or a combination might be able to provide an acceptable balance of efficacy and tolerability, according to Tamar Jacobsohn, a researcher in the Contraceptive Development Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md.

The two drugs evaluated in this study are dimethandrolone undecanoate (DMAU) and 11b-methyl-19-nortestosterone-17b-dodecylcarbonate (11b-MNTDC). Both are bifunctional prodrugs with androgenic and progestogenic effects. The prodrugs are designed to be cleaved after ingestion so that the active hormones are released over 24 hours, permitting once-daily dosing.

“As potent androgens, these steroids suppress gonadotropin secretion, leading to markedly decreased serum testosterone production,” explained Ms. Jacobsohn in an interview.

However, she noted that there is still a long way to go on this research path. While the phase 1 studies have shown tolerability, the biology involved in suppressing sperm production suggests that men would need to take these pills daily for about 3 months at the very beginning of contraceptive treatment, until adequate sperm suppression is achieved to prevent pregnancy.

“We are working toward a phase 2 trial that will include a contraceptive efficacy endpoint, but there are lots of steps to get there, including more early phase studies,” she noted.

“There is a huge unmet need in terms of male contraceptive methods,” said Arthi Thirumalai, MBBS, an endocrinologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

Senior author of a 2020 review article on male contraception, Dr. Thirumalai said in an interview that prodrugs and other hormonal methods to lower testosterone and suppress sperm production are attractive because of convenience, efficacy, and reversibility,

“We hope that oral formulations can be used to address this need,” said Dr. Thirumalai, who has participated in several experimental and clinical studies of male contraception methods. She is, in fact, one of the many coauthors of the data presented by Ms. Jacobsohn.

Ms. Jacobsohn emphasized: “Development of an effective, reversible male contraceptive method will improve reproductive options for men and women, have a major impact on public health by decreasing unintended pregnancy, and allow men to have an increasingly active role in family planning.”

Phase 1 results with DMAU and MNTDC

The work that led to phase 1 studies suggested that each of the drugs — DMAU and MNTDC — might provide adequate hormone suppression to reduce sperm counts without inducing unacceptable symptoms of hypogonadism. To test this potential, dose-ranging phase 1 studies with an endpoint of testosterone suppression were conducted with each one.

In the two placebo-controlled phase 1a studies, which are to be presented in a poster on June 13, healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to two pills of active therapy, four pills of active therapy, or placebo. In the two studies combined, 39 subjects received DMAU, 30 received 11b-MNTDC, and 28 received placebo.

Efficacy was evaluated by measuring testosterone levels. Tolerability was largely based on patient questionnaires.

At the end of 7 days, testosterone levels remained at reference levels (400 to 600 ng/dL) in those who received placebo. The levels fell to less than 100 ng/dL in all subjects assigned to an active agent regardless of which agent or dose was used.

From day 7 to 28, there was less median suppression of testosterone on 200 mg than 400 mg daily (92.7 ng/dL vs. 49.6 ng/dL; P < .001), but both remained below the target of 100 ng/dL, Ms. Jacobsohn reported.

The difference in degree of testosterone suppression did not appear to influence tolerability.

Subjects on four vs. two daily pills “did not report a significant difference in general satisfaction or their willingness to use the pills in the future or recommend them to other men,” said Ms. Jacobson, presenting P values for these outcomes among subjects on active therapy relative to placebo that were not significant, ranging from 0.48 to 0.85.

Overall, there were no serious adverse events. Mild side effects associated with hypogonadism did occur, but “all resolved by the end of the study,” she said.

Zero sperm production is not the goal. Lowering it sufficiently is

Dr. Thirumalai said the need for a male contraceptive is strong. While condoms have a substantial failure rate, vasectomy is not reliably reversible even though the majority of men agree that the responsibility for preventing pregnancy should be shared, she said.

Dr. Thirumalai’s earlier review article found that clinical trials of hormonal suppression to provide male contraception have been conducted for at least 30 years. The challenge has been finding an effective therapy that is well tolerated.

Drugs that combine both androgenic and progestogenic activity might be the answer. By manipulating hormones that lower testosterone, sperm production is reduced without eliminating a man’s ability to ejaculate. Zero sperm production is not the goal, according to data in Dr. Thirumalai’s review article.

Rather, studies suggest that when ejaculate contains less than 1 million sperm per mL (levels typically range from 15 to 200 million sperm/mL), the antipregnancy efficacy is similar to that achieved with female oral contraceptives.

However, clinical trials to demonstrate that this can be achieved safely have yet to be conducted.

Ms. Jacobsohn said that sperm half-life is about 3 months. This means that patients would need to be on hormonal therapy for a period of about this duration before reliable contraception is achieved.

In other words, the efficacy endpoint used in this current study [of 28 days duration] does not ensure effective contraception, but Ms. Jacobsohn suggested this is nevertheless an important step forward in clinical development.

Ms. Jacobsohn and Dr. Thirumalai report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study suggests that, at least for certain male patients, the answer to infertility might lie with epigenetics.

According to the study, a commercially available test of epigenetic anomalies – factors that affect how genes express themselves – can grade the likelihood that sperm are viable for conception.

“The uniqueness of epigenetics is that some of the abnormalities detected have the potential to be modified with lifestyle,” said Larry I. Lipshultz, MD, head of the Division of Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who presented the new findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

For decades, semen analysis has been based on motility, morphology, and concentration. But these measures, while useful, are limited. Semen can still have low capacity for producing a pregnancy even when all three parameters are normal, Dr. Lipshultz told this news organization.

The test, called Path SpermQT (Inherent Biosciences) detects unstable gene promotors, which are the epigenetic markers for gene expression. In previous work with more than 1,300 gene samples, expression of the specific genes regulated by these promoters were linked to a wide variety of functions relevant to fertilization, such as spermatogenesis.

The test does not attempt to look for expression of specific unstable promoters but rather quantifies them to characterize sperm quality as excellent (≤ 10 unstable promoters), average (11-42), or poor (≥ 43).

In the studies that led to development of the SpermQT test, the number of unstable promoters correlated with pregnancy success. Pregnancy was achieved even among those in the group with poor sperm quality – but at very low rates.

Of the 172 semen samples collected so far in the ongoing analysis, sperm quality was characterized as excellent in 31%, average in 59%, and poor in 10%.

The stratifications for sperm quality were not significantly correlated with common measures of sperm viability, such as concentration, Dr. Lipshultz reported.

Certain patient characteristics were associated with greater sperm quality. These included use of antioxidant supplementation and low estrogen levels, as seen in men who had taken aromatase inhibitors.

So far, only one natural conception has occurred in the group with poor sperm versus eight in those with average or excellent quality.

The prognostic role of the test is only part of the picture.

“The exciting thing about this area of research is that epigenetics can be changed,” Dr. Lipshultz said in an interview. Based on the data so far, he said he is already starting to consider antioxidant supplementation and hormone modifications when sperm quality is poor.

The value of the Path SpermQT test for identifying treatment targets might eventually revolutionize the management of male infertility, Dr. Lipshultz said, but it has more immediate potential in helping couples decide whether to proceed with in vitro fertilization (IVF).

“We often see patients at an impasse when they are trying to decide to move to IVF,” he said. “A test like this could provide some direction. If sperm quality is good, the advice might be to keep trying. If poor, then a couple might want to move to IVF more quickly.”

A test of sperm quality on the basis of epigenetics “could change how we look at couples attempting to conceive,” agreed Peter N. Schlegel, MD, professor of urology and reproductive medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Schlegel praised several characteristics of the epigenetics test, including that 70%-80% of men with poor quality with SpermQT have normal results on standard assessments of semen. This finding suggests the tool is providing unique information about patients. He also noted that the studies so far indicate that sperm of poor quality for natural conception is still viable for IVF fertilization – which could be useful for couples weighing their options.

However, while the test is already available, Dr. Schlegel cautioned that much of the promise has yet to be documented.

“The results to date, despite being statistically significant, have only been gleaned from a small group of patients,” he said. “Much larger studies are needed before a change in practice is warranted.”

The value of SpermQT for identifying modifiable risks might be even further away.

“It is well recognized that environmental and lifestyle changes can affect methylation, but it is not known if the abnormalities seen so far could be influenced by lifestyle changes,” Dr. Schlegel said. Among the numerous steps needed to answer this question, he suggested that it might first be important “to evaluate why such changes in methylation occur.”

Dr. Lipshultz has financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Inherent Biosciences, which is marketing the SpermQT test. Dr. Schlegel has financial relationships with Theralogix, Posterity Health, and Roman Health.

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

A new study suggests that, at least for certain male patients, the answer to infertility might lie with epigenetics.

According to the study, a commercially available test of epigenetic anomalies – factors that affect how genes express themselves – can grade the likelihood that sperm are viable for conception.

“The uniqueness of epigenetics is that some of the abnormalities detected have the potential to be modified with lifestyle,” said Larry I. Lipshultz, MD, head of the Division of Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who presented the new findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

For decades, semen analysis has been based on motility, morphology, and concentration. But these measures, while useful, are limited. Semen can still have low capacity for producing a pregnancy even when all three parameters are normal, Dr. Lipshultz told this news organization.

The test, called Path SpermQT (Inherent Biosciences) detects unstable gene promotors, which are the epigenetic markers for gene expression. In previous work with more than 1,300 gene samples, expression of the specific genes regulated by these promoters were linked to a wide variety of functions relevant to fertilization, such as spermatogenesis.

The test does not attempt to look for expression of specific unstable promoters but rather quantifies them to characterize sperm quality as excellent (≤ 10 unstable promoters), average (11-42), or poor (≥ 43).

In the studies that led to development of the SpermQT test, the number of unstable promoters correlated with pregnancy success. Pregnancy was achieved even among those in the group with poor sperm quality – but at very low rates.

Of the 172 semen samples collected so far in the ongoing analysis, sperm quality was characterized as excellent in 31%, average in 59%, and poor in 10%.

The stratifications for sperm quality were not significantly correlated with common measures of sperm viability, such as concentration, Dr. Lipshultz reported.

Certain patient characteristics were associated with greater sperm quality. These included use of antioxidant supplementation and low estrogen levels, as seen in men who had taken aromatase inhibitors.

So far, only one natural conception has occurred in the group with poor sperm versus eight in those with average or excellent quality.

The prognostic role of the test is only part of the picture.

“The exciting thing about this area of research is that epigenetics can be changed,” Dr. Lipshultz said in an interview. Based on the data so far, he said he is already starting to consider antioxidant supplementation and hormone modifications when sperm quality is poor.

The value of the Path SpermQT test for identifying treatment targets might eventually revolutionize the management of male infertility, Dr. Lipshultz said, but it has more immediate potential in helping couples decide whether to proceed with in vitro fertilization (IVF).

“We often see patients at an impasse when they are trying to decide to move to IVF,” he said. “A test like this could provide some direction. If sperm quality is good, the advice might be to keep trying. If poor, then a couple might want to move to IVF more quickly.”

A test of sperm quality on the basis of epigenetics “could change how we look at couples attempting to conceive,” agreed Peter N. Schlegel, MD, professor of urology and reproductive medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Schlegel praised several characteristics of the epigenetics test, including that 70%-80% of men with poor quality with SpermQT have normal results on standard assessments of semen. This finding suggests the tool is providing unique information about patients. He also noted that the studies so far indicate that sperm of poor quality for natural conception is still viable for IVF fertilization – which could be useful for couples weighing their options.

However, while the test is already available, Dr. Schlegel cautioned that much of the promise has yet to be documented.

“The results to date, despite being statistically significant, have only been gleaned from a small group of patients,” he said. “Much larger studies are needed before a change in practice is warranted.”

The value of SpermQT for identifying modifiable risks might be even further away.

“It is well recognized that environmental and lifestyle changes can affect methylation, but it is not known if the abnormalities seen so far could be influenced by lifestyle changes,” Dr. Schlegel said. Among the numerous steps needed to answer this question, he suggested that it might first be important “to evaluate why such changes in methylation occur.”

Dr. Lipshultz has financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Inherent Biosciences, which is marketing the SpermQT test. Dr. Schlegel has financial relationships with Theralogix, Posterity Health, and Roman Health.

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

A new study suggests that, at least for certain male patients, the answer to infertility might lie with epigenetics.

According to the study, a commercially available test of epigenetic anomalies – factors that affect how genes express themselves – can grade the likelihood that sperm are viable for conception.

“The uniqueness of epigenetics is that some of the abnormalities detected have the potential to be modified with lifestyle,” said Larry I. Lipshultz, MD, head of the Division of Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who presented the new findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

For decades, semen analysis has been based on motility, morphology, and concentration. But these measures, while useful, are limited. Semen can still have low capacity for producing a pregnancy even when all three parameters are normal, Dr. Lipshultz told this news organization.

The test, called Path SpermQT (Inherent Biosciences) detects unstable gene promotors, which are the epigenetic markers for gene expression. In previous work with more than 1,300 gene samples, expression of the specific genes regulated by these promoters were linked to a wide variety of functions relevant to fertilization, such as spermatogenesis.

The test does not attempt to look for expression of specific unstable promoters but rather quantifies them to characterize sperm quality as excellent (≤ 10 unstable promoters), average (11-42), or poor (≥ 43).

In the studies that led to development of the SpermQT test, the number of unstable promoters correlated with pregnancy success. Pregnancy was achieved even among those in the group with poor sperm quality – but at very low rates.

Of the 172 semen samples collected so far in the ongoing analysis, sperm quality was characterized as excellent in 31%, average in 59%, and poor in 10%.

The stratifications for sperm quality were not significantly correlated with common measures of sperm viability, such as concentration, Dr. Lipshultz reported.

Certain patient characteristics were associated with greater sperm quality. These included use of antioxidant supplementation and low estrogen levels, as seen in men who had taken aromatase inhibitors.

So far, only one natural conception has occurred in the group with poor sperm versus eight in those with average or excellent quality.

The prognostic role of the test is only part of the picture.

“The exciting thing about this area of research is that epigenetics can be changed,” Dr. Lipshultz said in an interview. Based on the data so far, he said he is already starting to consider antioxidant supplementation and hormone modifications when sperm quality is poor.

The value of the Path SpermQT test for identifying treatment targets might eventually revolutionize the management of male infertility, Dr. Lipshultz said, but it has more immediate potential in helping couples decide whether to proceed with in vitro fertilization (IVF).

“We often see patients at an impasse when they are trying to decide to move to IVF,” he said. “A test like this could provide some direction. If sperm quality is good, the advice might be to keep trying. If poor, then a couple might want to move to IVF more quickly.”

A test of sperm quality on the basis of epigenetics “could change how we look at couples attempting to conceive,” agreed Peter N. Schlegel, MD, professor of urology and reproductive medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Schlegel praised several characteristics of the epigenetics test, including that 70%-80% of men with poor quality with SpermQT have normal results on standard assessments of semen. This finding suggests the tool is providing unique information about patients. He also noted that the studies so far indicate that sperm of poor quality for natural conception is still viable for IVF fertilization – which could be useful for couples weighing their options.

However, while the test is already available, Dr. Schlegel cautioned that much of the promise has yet to be documented.

“The results to date, despite being statistically significant, have only been gleaned from a small group of patients,” he said. “Much larger studies are needed before a change in practice is warranted.”

The value of SpermQT for identifying modifiable risks might be even further away.

“It is well recognized that environmental and lifestyle changes can affect methylation, but it is not known if the abnormalities seen so far could be influenced by lifestyle changes,” Dr. Schlegel said. Among the numerous steps needed to answer this question, he suggested that it might first be important “to evaluate why such changes in methylation occur.”

Dr. Lipshultz has financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Inherent Biosciences, which is marketing the SpermQT test. Dr. Schlegel has financial relationships with Theralogix, Posterity Health, and Roman Health.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

California researchers are seeking women willing to use sex toys for science.

A group at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles has launched a study to see whether the current generation of vibrators – powerful, technologically advanced, even Bluetooth-enabled – can improve sexual health, pelvic floor function, and overall well-being.

“We have not had good-quality studies with the use of modern vibrators,” Alexandra Dubinskaya, MD, an obstetrician who is leading the study, said in an interview.

Vibrators of various kinds have been used by women for centuries if not millennia. More than half of women in the United States have at least some experience with the devices.

Victorian-era physicians are said to have routinely prescribed multiple types of vibrators to treat “female hysteria,” although the frequency with which vibrators were recommended for therapeutic purposes has been questioned.

Still, Dr. Dubinskaya said vibrators have a long history of use as therapy – with some evidence of success.

She and her colleagues reviewed the medical literature and found that studies generally supported the use of vibrators for increased blood flow in pelvic tissues, improved sexual function, including orgasms, and possibly urinary incontinence by helping to strengthen the pelvic floor. They also appear to boost desire, arousal, and genital sensation.

For the new study, Dr. Dubinskaya and her colleagues hope to eventually include 100 women between the ages of 18 and 99 years. Each will receive a commercially available genital vibrator and instructions to use the device to reach orgasm three times per week for 3 to 4 months. The researchers will track any changes in sexual function, pelvic prolapse, urinary continence, and other measures of pelvic and sexual health.

The goal of the study, Dr. Dubinskaya said, is to provide prospective data for clinicians who might consider recommending vibrators to their patients – a list that includes urologists, gynecologists, and experts in sexual medicine.

These clinicians “are frequently the first to encounter questions on women’s sexual function, pelvic floor problems, and vulvar health,” Dr. Dubinskaya said. She noted that such questions are common.

Asking women to consider using vibrators might seem too sensitive a subject in a clinical setting, but Dr. Dubinskaya said data indicate that women are receptive to the suggestion.

Debra Lynne Herbenick, PhD, director of the Center for Sexual Health Promotion and a professor of public health at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has studied vibrator use in the United States, said the research could make a valuable contribution to sexual health.

“This study is an important next step because it is a prospective study and will be able to assess changes in sexual and pelvic floor function over time in relation to vibrator use,” Dr. Herbenick said. Owing to the limited quality of the currently available evidence, these data have the potential “to support clinicians’ recommendations and also their communication with patients.”

Dr. Dubinskaya and Dr. Herbenick reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

California researchers are seeking women willing to use sex toys for science.

A group at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles has launched a study to see whether the current generation of vibrators – powerful, technologically advanced, even Bluetooth-enabled – can improve sexual health, pelvic floor function, and overall well-being.

“We have not had good-quality studies with the use of modern vibrators,” Alexandra Dubinskaya, MD, an obstetrician who is leading the study, said in an interview.

Vibrators of various kinds have been used by women for centuries if not millennia. More than half of women in the United States have at least some experience with the devices.

Victorian-era physicians are said to have routinely prescribed multiple types of vibrators to treat “female hysteria,” although the frequency with which vibrators were recommended for therapeutic purposes has been questioned.

Still, Dr. Dubinskaya said vibrators have a long history of use as therapy – with some evidence of success.

She and her colleagues reviewed the medical literature and found that studies generally supported the use of vibrators for increased blood flow in pelvic tissues, improved sexual function, including orgasms, and possibly urinary incontinence by helping to strengthen the pelvic floor. They also appear to boost desire, arousal, and genital sensation.

For the new study, Dr. Dubinskaya and her colleagues hope to eventually include 100 women between the ages of 18 and 99 years. Each will receive a commercially available genital vibrator and instructions to use the device to reach orgasm three times per week for 3 to 4 months. The researchers will track any changes in sexual function, pelvic prolapse, urinary continence, and other measures of pelvic and sexual health.

The goal of the study, Dr. Dubinskaya said, is to provide prospective data for clinicians who might consider recommending vibrators to their patients – a list that includes urologists, gynecologists, and experts in sexual medicine.

These clinicians “are frequently the first to encounter questions on women’s sexual function, pelvic floor problems, and vulvar health,” Dr. Dubinskaya said. She noted that such questions are common.

Asking women to consider using vibrators might seem too sensitive a subject in a clinical setting, but Dr. Dubinskaya said data indicate that women are receptive to the suggestion.

Debra Lynne Herbenick, PhD, director of the Center for Sexual Health Promotion and a professor of public health at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has studied vibrator use in the United States, said the research could make a valuable contribution to sexual health.

“This study is an important next step because it is a prospective study and will be able to assess changes in sexual and pelvic floor function over time in relation to vibrator use,” Dr. Herbenick said. Owing to the limited quality of the currently available evidence, these data have the potential “to support clinicians’ recommendations and also their communication with patients.”

Dr. Dubinskaya and Dr. Herbenick reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

California researchers are seeking women willing to use sex toys for science.

A group at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles has launched a study to see whether the current generation of vibrators – powerful, technologically advanced, even Bluetooth-enabled – can improve sexual health, pelvic floor function, and overall well-being.

“We have not had good-quality studies with the use of modern vibrators,” Alexandra Dubinskaya, MD, an obstetrician who is leading the study, said in an interview.

Vibrators of various kinds have been used by women for centuries if not millennia. More than half of women in the United States have at least some experience with the devices.

Victorian-era physicians are said to have routinely prescribed multiple types of vibrators to treat “female hysteria,” although the frequency with which vibrators were recommended for therapeutic purposes has been questioned.

Still, Dr. Dubinskaya said vibrators have a long history of use as therapy – with some evidence of success.

She and her colleagues reviewed the medical literature and found that studies generally supported the use of vibrators for increased blood flow in pelvic tissues, improved sexual function, including orgasms, and possibly urinary incontinence by helping to strengthen the pelvic floor. They also appear to boost desire, arousal, and genital sensation.

For the new study, Dr. Dubinskaya and her colleagues hope to eventually include 100 women between the ages of 18 and 99 years. Each will receive a commercially available genital vibrator and instructions to use the device to reach orgasm three times per week for 3 to 4 months. The researchers will track any changes in sexual function, pelvic prolapse, urinary continence, and other measures of pelvic and sexual health.

The goal of the study, Dr. Dubinskaya said, is to provide prospective data for clinicians who might consider recommending vibrators to their patients – a list that includes urologists, gynecologists, and experts in sexual medicine.

These clinicians “are frequently the first to encounter questions on women’s sexual function, pelvic floor problems, and vulvar health,” Dr. Dubinskaya said. She noted that such questions are common.

Asking women to consider using vibrators might seem too sensitive a subject in a clinical setting, but Dr. Dubinskaya said data indicate that women are receptive to the suggestion.

Debra Lynne Herbenick, PhD, director of the Center for Sexual Health Promotion and a professor of public health at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has studied vibrator use in the United States, said the research could make a valuable contribution to sexual health.

“This study is an important next step because it is a prospective study and will be able to assess changes in sexual and pelvic floor function over time in relation to vibrator use,” Dr. Herbenick said. Owing to the limited quality of the currently available evidence, these data have the potential “to support clinicians’ recommendations and also their communication with patients.”

Dr. Dubinskaya and Dr. Herbenick reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (PCI), outcomes were noninferior at 2 years, but the approaches appear to have different strengths, according to results of the FLAVOUR trial.

For the primary composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months, the approaches performed comparatively, but there were substantial differences in the number of revascularization procedures performed, reported Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

At 24 months, 8.1% of the FFR group and 8.5% of the IVUS group had a primary event. The 0.4% difference was not significantly different and fulfilled the definition of noninferiority (P = .015). When the components of the primary endpoint were compared along with rates of stroke, the rates were also similar and not significantly different.

However, the proportion of patients who received a stent (44.4% vs. 65.3%), the total number of stents per patient (0.6 vs. 0.9), and the total stent length per patient (16.5 vs. 25.2) were significantly lower (all P < .001) in the FFR group.

FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) confirmed the investigators’ hypothesis that an FFR-guided strategy for intermediate coronary stenosis is noninferior to IVUS for outcomes. In addition, patient-reported angina outcomes on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were nearly identical across domains, including angina frequency, physical limitations, and treatment satisfaction.
 

FFR vs. IVUS differences revealed

However, the more important value of this study might its role in showing how the two approaches differ in ways unrelated to the primary outcome, according to Dr. Koo, chair of cardiology at Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, as well as several experts that commented on the results.

Most notably, the fact that FFR-guided PCI provides similar outcomes at 2 years even though it was associated with a substantially reduced rate of revascularizations is telling about its role relative to IVUS.

“These data confirm how a lot of us are already approaching this,” said an ACC-invited expert, Frederick G. Welt, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “FFR should be used to decide who should get an intervention, and IVUS should be use to optimize the intervention.”

Dr. Koo explained that FFR is an invasive tool that provides a physiological assessment of the degree to which a stenosis is causing ischemia. IVUS is a tool that permits visualization and measurement of plaque severity and characteristics to better optimize PCI. They can both help guide PCI, but they are not necessarily competing strategies. Often, the information they provide is complementary.

In this multicenter trial conducted at 18 centers in Korea and China, 1,682 candidates with de novo stenoses of intermediate severity, defined as 40%-70%, were randomized to FFR- or IVUS-guided PCI. At 24 months, outcomes could be assessed in 832 of the FFR patients and 836 of the IVUS patients, which represented more than 99% of both groups.

In the study, the indications for stent placement were predefined for the FFR-guided and IVUS-guided approaches. The criteria to define optimal outcomes post PCI were also predefined. For FFR, this included a postprocedure value of at least 0.88. For IVUS, the definition of optimal outcome included a plaque burden of 55% or less at the stent edge and a minimal stent area of at least 5.5 mm².

The primary outcome for those with optimal versus suboptimal FFR-guided PCI were similar at all time points. For those with an optimal post-PCI result, the event rate was only slightly higher for those with an optimal relative to a suboptimal result (12.3% vs. 11.8%).
 

Suboptimal IVUS differs from suboptimal FFR

In contrast, the event rates over the course of follow-up were consistently higher among those with a suboptimal relative to an optimal IVUS-guided PCI. At the end of 2 years, the numerically greater rate of events among those with a suboptimal IVUS-guided PCI was not significant (9.8% vs. 8.5%; P = .212), but the gap was larger than that seen with FFR-guided PCI.

FFR-guided and IVUS-guided PCI performed similarly for the primary outcome across numerous stratifications. These included age older or younger than 65 years, male or female sex, presence or absence of multivessel disease, and presence of diabetes. They were also similar for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as an indication for PCI, which accounted for about 30% of patients, relative to those without ACS.

“I would say that at least some interventionalists in the U.S. would be uncomfortable using FFR in ACS patients,” said Dr. Welt, pointing out a potential difference between how these tools are used to guide PCI. Still, because “there are not a lot of data to compare these technologies,” he expressed appreciation for a study looking at these tools side-by-side.

A similar point was made by Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. With the slightly lower rates of primary events in those treated optimally according to IVUS relative to those treated optimally by FFR (8.5% vs. 12.3%), he suggested IVUS appears better for evaluating the physiology of the stenosis.

Dr. Kirtane pointed out that two-thirds of the lesions were left behind in those guided by FFR versus only about half of the lesions when PCI was guided by IVUS, yet outcomes were similar. He indicated that the data support current practice in which FFR is most commonly used to select PCI patients with intermediate disease for stent placement.

Dr. Koo has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips Volcano. Dr. Welt has financial relationships with Medtronic and Xenter. Dr. Kirtane has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporate, Medtronic, Philips/Spectranetics, Recor Medical, and Regeneron. The study received a research grant from Boston Scientific.

In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (PCI), outcomes were noninferior at 2 years, but the approaches appear to have different strengths, according to results of the FLAVOUR trial.

For the primary composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months, the approaches performed comparatively, but there were substantial differences in the number of revascularization procedures performed, reported Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

At 24 months, 8.1% of the FFR group and 8.5% of the IVUS group had a primary event. The 0.4% difference was not significantly different and fulfilled the definition of noninferiority (P = .015). When the components of the primary endpoint were compared along with rates of stroke, the rates were also similar and not significantly different.

However, the proportion of patients who received a stent (44.4% vs. 65.3%), the total number of stents per patient (0.6 vs. 0.9), and the total stent length per patient (16.5 vs. 25.2) were significantly lower (all P < .001) in the FFR group.

FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) confirmed the investigators’ hypothesis that an FFR-guided strategy for intermediate coronary stenosis is noninferior to IVUS for outcomes. In addition, patient-reported angina outcomes on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were nearly identical across domains, including angina frequency, physical limitations, and treatment satisfaction.
 

FFR vs. IVUS differences revealed

However, the more important value of this study might its role in showing how the two approaches differ in ways unrelated to the primary outcome, according to Dr. Koo, chair of cardiology at Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, as well as several experts that commented on the results.

Most notably, the fact that FFR-guided PCI provides similar outcomes at 2 years even though it was associated with a substantially reduced rate of revascularizations is telling about its role relative to IVUS.

“These data confirm how a lot of us are already approaching this,” said an ACC-invited expert, Frederick G. Welt, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “FFR should be used to decide who should get an intervention, and IVUS should be use to optimize the intervention.”

Dr. Koo explained that FFR is an invasive tool that provides a physiological assessment of the degree to which a stenosis is causing ischemia. IVUS is a tool that permits visualization and measurement of plaque severity and characteristics to better optimize PCI. They can both help guide PCI, but they are not necessarily competing strategies. Often, the information they provide is complementary.

In this multicenter trial conducted at 18 centers in Korea and China, 1,682 candidates with de novo stenoses of intermediate severity, defined as 40%-70%, were randomized to FFR- or IVUS-guided PCI. At 24 months, outcomes could be assessed in 832 of the FFR patients and 836 of the IVUS patients, which represented more than 99% of both groups.

In the study, the indications for stent placement were predefined for the FFR-guided and IVUS-guided approaches. The criteria to define optimal outcomes post PCI were also predefined. For FFR, this included a postprocedure value of at least 0.88. For IVUS, the definition of optimal outcome included a plaque burden of 55% or less at the stent edge and a minimal stent area of at least 5.5 mm².

The primary outcome for those with optimal versus suboptimal FFR-guided PCI were similar at all time points. For those with an optimal post-PCI result, the event rate was only slightly higher for those with an optimal relative to a suboptimal result (12.3% vs. 11.8%).
 

Suboptimal IVUS differs from suboptimal FFR

In contrast, the event rates over the course of follow-up were consistently higher among those with a suboptimal relative to an optimal IVUS-guided PCI. At the end of 2 years, the numerically greater rate of events among those with a suboptimal IVUS-guided PCI was not significant (9.8% vs. 8.5%; P = .212), but the gap was larger than that seen with FFR-guided PCI.

FFR-guided and IVUS-guided PCI performed similarly for the primary outcome across numerous stratifications. These included age older or younger than 65 years, male or female sex, presence or absence of multivessel disease, and presence of diabetes. They were also similar for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as an indication for PCI, which accounted for about 30% of patients, relative to those without ACS.

“I would say that at least some interventionalists in the U.S. would be uncomfortable using FFR in ACS patients,” said Dr. Welt, pointing out a potential difference between how these tools are used to guide PCI. Still, because “there are not a lot of data to compare these technologies,” he expressed appreciation for a study looking at these tools side-by-side.

A similar point was made by Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. With the slightly lower rates of primary events in those treated optimally according to IVUS relative to those treated optimally by FFR (8.5% vs. 12.3%), he suggested IVUS appears better for evaluating the physiology of the stenosis.

Dr. Kirtane pointed out that two-thirds of the lesions were left behind in those guided by FFR versus only about half of the lesions when PCI was guided by IVUS, yet outcomes were similar. He indicated that the data support current practice in which FFR is most commonly used to select PCI patients with intermediate disease for stent placement.

Dr. Koo has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips Volcano. Dr. Welt has financial relationships with Medtronic and Xenter. Dr. Kirtane has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporate, Medtronic, Philips/Spectranetics, Recor Medical, and Regeneron. The study received a research grant from Boston Scientific.

In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (PCI), outcomes were noninferior at 2 years, but the approaches appear to have different strengths, according to results of the FLAVOUR trial.

For the primary composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months, the approaches performed comparatively, but there were substantial differences in the number of revascularization procedures performed, reported Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

At 24 months, 8.1% of the FFR group and 8.5% of the IVUS group had a primary event. The 0.4% difference was not significantly different and fulfilled the definition of noninferiority (P = .015). When the components of the primary endpoint were compared along with rates of stroke, the rates were also similar and not significantly different.

However, the proportion of patients who received a stent (44.4% vs. 65.3%), the total number of stents per patient (0.6 vs. 0.9), and the total stent length per patient (16.5 vs. 25.2) were significantly lower (all P < .001) in the FFR group.

FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) confirmed the investigators’ hypothesis that an FFR-guided strategy for intermediate coronary stenosis is noninferior to IVUS for outcomes. In addition, patient-reported angina outcomes on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were nearly identical across domains, including angina frequency, physical limitations, and treatment satisfaction.
 

FFR vs. IVUS differences revealed

However, the more important value of this study might its role in showing how the two approaches differ in ways unrelated to the primary outcome, according to Dr. Koo, chair of cardiology at Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, as well as several experts that commented on the results.

Most notably, the fact that FFR-guided PCI provides similar outcomes at 2 years even though it was associated with a substantially reduced rate of revascularizations is telling about its role relative to IVUS.

“These data confirm how a lot of us are already approaching this,” said an ACC-invited expert, Frederick G. Welt, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “FFR should be used to decide who should get an intervention, and IVUS should be use to optimize the intervention.”

Dr. Koo explained that FFR is an invasive tool that provides a physiological assessment of the degree to which a stenosis is causing ischemia. IVUS is a tool that permits visualization and measurement of plaque severity and characteristics to better optimize PCI. They can both help guide PCI, but they are not necessarily competing strategies. Often, the information they provide is complementary.

In this multicenter trial conducted at 18 centers in Korea and China, 1,682 candidates with de novo stenoses of intermediate severity, defined as 40%-70%, were randomized to FFR- or IVUS-guided PCI. At 24 months, outcomes could be assessed in 832 of the FFR patients and 836 of the IVUS patients, which represented more than 99% of both groups.

In the study, the indications for stent placement were predefined for the FFR-guided and IVUS-guided approaches. The criteria to define optimal outcomes post PCI were also predefined. For FFR, this included a postprocedure value of at least 0.88. For IVUS, the definition of optimal outcome included a plaque burden of 55% or less at the stent edge and a minimal stent area of at least 5.5 mm².

The primary outcome for those with optimal versus suboptimal FFR-guided PCI were similar at all time points. For those with an optimal post-PCI result, the event rate was only slightly higher for those with an optimal relative to a suboptimal result (12.3% vs. 11.8%).
 

Suboptimal IVUS differs from suboptimal FFR

In contrast, the event rates over the course of follow-up were consistently higher among those with a suboptimal relative to an optimal IVUS-guided PCI. At the end of 2 years, the numerically greater rate of events among those with a suboptimal IVUS-guided PCI was not significant (9.8% vs. 8.5%; P = .212), but the gap was larger than that seen with FFR-guided PCI.

FFR-guided and IVUS-guided PCI performed similarly for the primary outcome across numerous stratifications. These included age older or younger than 65 years, male or female sex, presence or absence of multivessel disease, and presence of diabetes. They were also similar for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as an indication for PCI, which accounted for about 30% of patients, relative to those without ACS.

“I would say that at least some interventionalists in the U.S. would be uncomfortable using FFR in ACS patients,” said Dr. Welt, pointing out a potential difference between how these tools are used to guide PCI. Still, because “there are not a lot of data to compare these technologies,” he expressed appreciation for a study looking at these tools side-by-side.

A similar point was made by Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. With the slightly lower rates of primary events in those treated optimally according to IVUS relative to those treated optimally by FFR (8.5% vs. 12.3%), he suggested IVUS appears better for evaluating the physiology of the stenosis.

Dr. Kirtane pointed out that two-thirds of the lesions were left behind in those guided by FFR versus only about half of the lesions when PCI was guided by IVUS, yet outcomes were similar. He indicated that the data support current practice in which FFR is most commonly used to select PCI patients with intermediate disease for stent placement.

Dr. Koo has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips Volcano. Dr. Welt has financial relationships with Medtronic and Xenter. Dr. Kirtane has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporate, Medtronic, Philips/Spectranetics, Recor Medical, and Regeneron. The study received a research grant from Boston Scientific.

Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.

For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.

In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).

As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.

The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.

In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.

More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years

In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.

SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.

When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.

There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).

In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
 

SVD linked to doubling of mortality

SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).

The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.

Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.

“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.

This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.

Several experts agreed that this is important new information.

“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.

Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.

Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.

“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”

Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.

Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.

For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.

In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).

As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.

The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.

In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.

More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years

In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.

SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.

When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.

There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).

In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
 

SVD linked to doubling of mortality

SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).

The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.

Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.

“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.

This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.

Several experts agreed that this is important new information.

“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.

Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.

Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.

“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”

Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.

Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.

For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.

In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).

As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.

The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.

In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.

More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years

In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.

SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.

When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.

There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).

In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
 

SVD linked to doubling of mortality

SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).

The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.

Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.

“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.

This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.

Several experts agreed that this is important new information.

“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.

Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.

Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.

“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”

Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.

The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.

The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.

Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.

Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
 

Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality

The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.

This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.

For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”

The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.

With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.

Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.

Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.

In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.

The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
 

Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction

About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).

Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.

Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.

The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.

“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
 

Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction

It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.

Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.

“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.

“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.

More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”

While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.

“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.

Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.

The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.

The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.

Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.

Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
 

Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality

The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.

This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.

For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”

The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.

With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.

Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.

Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.

In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.

The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
 

Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction

About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).

Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.

Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.

The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.

“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
 

Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction

It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.

Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.

“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.

“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.

More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”

While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.

“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.

Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.

The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.

The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.

Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.

Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
 

Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality

The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.

This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.

For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”

The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.

With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.

Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.

Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.

In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.

The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
 

Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction

About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).

Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.

Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.

The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.

“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
 

Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction

It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.

Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.

“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.

“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.

More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”

While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.

“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.

Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.