MDedge Cardiology

BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.

Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.

Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty

“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.

A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.

The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.

“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’

The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.

The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).

Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.

To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.

PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).

BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.

Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.

Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty

“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.

A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.

The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.

“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’

The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.

The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).

Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.

To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.

PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).

BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.

Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.

Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty

“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.

A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.

The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.

“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’

The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.

The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).

Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.

To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.

PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).

When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.

While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.

Case

A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?

A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.

B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.

In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.

Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids

Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.¹ They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.

Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control

trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.² Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.

Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.³ Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).³

Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs

There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.

For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.

Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
 

Summary

Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.

Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.⁴
 

Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Rahman F et al. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2018;20(3):14. Published 2018 Feb 17.

2. Mora S et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):898-905.

3. Sidhu D and Naugler C. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(22):1707-10.

4. Hoover LE. Am Fam Physician. 2019 May 1;99(9):589-91.

When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.

While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.

Case

A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?

A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.

B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.

In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.

Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids

Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.¹ They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.

Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control

trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.² Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.

Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.³ Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).³

Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs

There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.

For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.

Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
 

Summary

Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.

Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.⁴
 

Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Rahman F et al. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2018;20(3):14. Published 2018 Feb 17.

2. Mora S et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):898-905.

3. Sidhu D and Naugler C. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(22):1707-10.

4. Hoover LE. Am Fam Physician. 2019 May 1;99(9):589-91.

When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.

While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.

Case

A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?

A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.

B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.

In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.

Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids

Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.¹ They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.

Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control

trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.² Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.

Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.³ Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).³

Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs

There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.

For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.

Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
 

Summary

Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.

Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.⁴
 

Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Rahman F et al. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2018;20(3):14. Published 2018 Feb 17.

2. Mora S et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):898-905.

3. Sidhu D and Naugler C. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(22):1707-10.

4. Hoover LE. Am Fam Physician. 2019 May 1;99(9):589-91.

Takeaway

• Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
• Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.

Why this matters

• Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.

Study design

• A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
• Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.

Key results

• During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
• A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
• Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
• –Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
• –Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).

• The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
• –At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
• –Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
• –At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
• Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.

Limitations

• Observational design.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Reference

Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.

Takeaway

• Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
• Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.

Why this matters

• Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.

Study design

• A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
• Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.

Key results

• During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
• A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
• Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
• –Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
• –Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).

• The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
• –At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
• –Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
• –At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
• Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.

Limitations

• Observational design.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Reference

Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.

Takeaway

• Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
• Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.

Why this matters

• Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.

Study design

• A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
• Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.

Key results

• During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
• A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
• Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
• –Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
• –Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).

• The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
• –At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
• –Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
• –At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
• Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.

Limitations

• Observational design.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Reference

Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.

STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.

A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Moving away from BMI-centric obesity

“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.

But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
 

1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality

The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.

Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.

Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.

One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.

The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.

A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Moving away from BMI-centric obesity

“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.

But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
 

1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality

The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.

Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.

Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.

One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.

The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.

A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Moving away from BMI-centric obesity

“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.

But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
 

1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality

The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.

Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.

Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.

One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.

The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Following transradial access for angiography or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a low dose of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban for 7 days reduces the risk of an access-site occlusion by 50%, according to results of the randomized RIVARAD trial.

Of two multicenter, randomized trials to address this question it is the larger, according to Rania Hammami, MD, who presented the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In the open-label RIVARAD trial, 538 patients were randomized to 10 mg rivaroxaban or standard care alone. Standard care at the beginning of the procedure included unfractionated heparin in a dose of 50 IU/kg for angiography and up to 100 IU/kg for PCI. Manual compression was applied at the end of the procedure followed by an evaluation for complications, such as hematoma or aneurysm.

For the primary outcome of radial access occlusion at 30 days, the lower rate in the rivaroxaban arm (6.9% vs. 13.0%) translated into a statistically significant 50% reduction (odds ratio, 0.50; P = .011).
 

Rivaroxaban preserves radial pulse

Rivaroxaban was also favored for the endpoint of inability at 30 days to find a radial pulse (5.8% vs. 12.2%; P = .01). Interestingly, there was some disparity for this endpoint for clinical examination and ultrasound.

“In 12 patients, we were able to palpate a radial pulse, but the ultrasound showed an occlusion of the vessel, while in 7 patients we could not find a radial pulse even though the radial artery was patent on ultrasound,” Dr. Hammami, of the department of cardiology, Hedi Chaker Hospital, Sfax, Tunisia, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The incidence of hemorrhagic complications was higher in the rivaroxaban group (2.7% vs. 1.9%), but the difference did not approach statistical significance (OR, 1.5; P = .54). Moreover, all of the bleeding complications were minor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium level 1), and none of the bleeding complications were observed in patients receiving rivaroxaban alone. Rather, all patients with bleeding were taking one or more antiplatelet drugs along with rivaroxaban.

On univariate analysis, several baseline characteristics were associated with subsequent radial occlusion, including female sex (P = .02), current smoking (P = .03), renal failure (P = .004), and PCI for acute coronary syndrome (P = .02). On multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .001) and current smoking (P < .0001) became even stronger predictors of occlusion on a statistical basis, while a prior procedure involving radial access was also a significant predictor (P = .029).

“One woman out of two developed radial access occlusion if she had a history of smoking and had a history of a transradial puncture,” Dr. Hammami reported.

In a subgroup analysis, relative protection from radial artery occlusion from a 7-day course of rivaroxaban was particularly pronounced in those with diabetes, renal failure, or hypertension relative to those without these conditions, but the protective effect appeared to be about the same regardless of body mass index, age, sheath size, or current use of statins.

These findings are consistent with other studies evaluating the risk of radial access occlusion, according to Dr. Hammami. While different studies she cited reported incidences ranging from less than 1% to more than 30%, the risk has typically been highest in populations with increased susceptibility for thrombus formation, such as smokers and patients with diabetes.

Preventing radial artery occlusion has several benefits, not least of which is preserving this access point for future interventions, according to Dr. Hammami.

RIVARAD is the largest study to evaluate an anticoagulant for the prevention of radial artery occlusion, but it is not the first. Earlier in 2022, a Chinese trial called RESTORE was published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. In that placebo-controlled study of 382 patients, 7 days of 10 mg rivaroxaban was also linked to a significant reduction in radial artery occlusion at 30 days (3.8% vs. 11.5%; P = .011).

“We don’t know if a higher dose of rivaroxaban would be more effective and equally safe,” said Dr. Hammami, but added that a Canadian trial called CAPITAL RAPTOR will test this premise. In this trial, there is a planned enrollment of 1,800 patients who will be randomized to 15 mg rivaroxaban or standard treatment.

Occlusion risk appears underappreciated

The risk of radial artery occlusion might be underappreciated. According to data cited by Dr. Hammami, only about half of interventionalists in the United States and fewer than 10% outside of the United States routinely assess radial artery patency in conjunction with radial-access PCI. The data from this trial suggest that the risk can be substantially reduced, particularly in high-risk patients, with anticoagulant therapy.

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Agreeing that this is a potentially avoidable complication, Roxanna Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the RIVARAD study “a clinically meaningful trial,” and valuable for identifying risk factors as well as for showing a treatment effect and acceptable safety from a short course of a factor Xa inhibitor.

“This is very important work,” said Dr. Mehran, who praised the quality of the study and the contribution it makes for considering how and when prophylaxis is needed.

Dr. Hammami reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehran has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies but none with the sponsor of this trial, which was funded by Philadelphia Pharma, a drug company based in Tunisia.

BOSTON – Following transradial access for angiography or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a low dose of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban for 7 days reduces the risk of an access-site occlusion by 50%, according to results of the randomized RIVARAD trial.

Of two multicenter, randomized trials to address this question it is the larger, according to Rania Hammami, MD, who presented the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In the open-label RIVARAD trial, 538 patients were randomized to 10 mg rivaroxaban or standard care alone. Standard care at the beginning of the procedure included unfractionated heparin in a dose of 50 IU/kg for angiography and up to 100 IU/kg for PCI. Manual compression was applied at the end of the procedure followed by an evaluation for complications, such as hematoma or aneurysm.

For the primary outcome of radial access occlusion at 30 days, the lower rate in the rivaroxaban arm (6.9% vs. 13.0%) translated into a statistically significant 50% reduction (odds ratio, 0.50; P = .011).
 

Rivaroxaban preserves radial pulse

Rivaroxaban was also favored for the endpoint of inability at 30 days to find a radial pulse (5.8% vs. 12.2%; P = .01). Interestingly, there was some disparity for this endpoint for clinical examination and ultrasound.

“In 12 patients, we were able to palpate a radial pulse, but the ultrasound showed an occlusion of the vessel, while in 7 patients we could not find a radial pulse even though the radial artery was patent on ultrasound,” Dr. Hammami, of the department of cardiology, Hedi Chaker Hospital, Sfax, Tunisia, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The incidence of hemorrhagic complications was higher in the rivaroxaban group (2.7% vs. 1.9%), but the difference did not approach statistical significance (OR, 1.5; P = .54). Moreover, all of the bleeding complications were minor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium level 1), and none of the bleeding complications were observed in patients receiving rivaroxaban alone. Rather, all patients with bleeding were taking one or more antiplatelet drugs along with rivaroxaban.

On univariate analysis, several baseline characteristics were associated with subsequent radial occlusion, including female sex (P = .02), current smoking (P = .03), renal failure (P = .004), and PCI for acute coronary syndrome (P = .02). On multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .001) and current smoking (P < .0001) became even stronger predictors of occlusion on a statistical basis, while a prior procedure involving radial access was also a significant predictor (P = .029).

“One woman out of two developed radial access occlusion if she had a history of smoking and had a history of a transradial puncture,” Dr. Hammami reported.

In a subgroup analysis, relative protection from radial artery occlusion from a 7-day course of rivaroxaban was particularly pronounced in those with diabetes, renal failure, or hypertension relative to those without these conditions, but the protective effect appeared to be about the same regardless of body mass index, age, sheath size, or current use of statins.

These findings are consistent with other studies evaluating the risk of radial access occlusion, according to Dr. Hammami. While different studies she cited reported incidences ranging from less than 1% to more than 30%, the risk has typically been highest in populations with increased susceptibility for thrombus formation, such as smokers and patients with diabetes.

Preventing radial artery occlusion has several benefits, not least of which is preserving this access point for future interventions, according to Dr. Hammami.

RIVARAD is the largest study to evaluate an anticoagulant for the prevention of radial artery occlusion, but it is not the first. Earlier in 2022, a Chinese trial called RESTORE was published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. In that placebo-controlled study of 382 patients, 7 days of 10 mg rivaroxaban was also linked to a significant reduction in radial artery occlusion at 30 days (3.8% vs. 11.5%; P = .011).

“We don’t know if a higher dose of rivaroxaban would be more effective and equally safe,” said Dr. Hammami, but added that a Canadian trial called CAPITAL RAPTOR will test this premise. In this trial, there is a planned enrollment of 1,800 patients who will be randomized to 15 mg rivaroxaban or standard treatment.

Occlusion risk appears underappreciated

The risk of radial artery occlusion might be underappreciated. According to data cited by Dr. Hammami, only about half of interventionalists in the United States and fewer than 10% outside of the United States routinely assess radial artery patency in conjunction with radial-access PCI. The data from this trial suggest that the risk can be substantially reduced, particularly in high-risk patients, with anticoagulant therapy.

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Agreeing that this is a potentially avoidable complication, Roxanna Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the RIVARAD study “a clinically meaningful trial,” and valuable for identifying risk factors as well as for showing a treatment effect and acceptable safety from a short course of a factor Xa inhibitor.

“This is very important work,” said Dr. Mehran, who praised the quality of the study and the contribution it makes for considering how and when prophylaxis is needed.

Dr. Hammami reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehran has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies but none with the sponsor of this trial, which was funded by Philadelphia Pharma, a drug company based in Tunisia.

BOSTON – Following transradial access for angiography or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a low dose of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban for 7 days reduces the risk of an access-site occlusion by 50%, according to results of the randomized RIVARAD trial.

Of two multicenter, randomized trials to address this question it is the larger, according to Rania Hammami, MD, who presented the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In the open-label RIVARAD trial, 538 patients were randomized to 10 mg rivaroxaban or standard care alone. Standard care at the beginning of the procedure included unfractionated heparin in a dose of 50 IU/kg for angiography and up to 100 IU/kg for PCI. Manual compression was applied at the end of the procedure followed by an evaluation for complications, such as hematoma or aneurysm.

For the primary outcome of radial access occlusion at 30 days, the lower rate in the rivaroxaban arm (6.9% vs. 13.0%) translated into a statistically significant 50% reduction (odds ratio, 0.50; P = .011).
 

Rivaroxaban preserves radial pulse

Rivaroxaban was also favored for the endpoint of inability at 30 days to find a radial pulse (5.8% vs. 12.2%; P = .01). Interestingly, there was some disparity for this endpoint for clinical examination and ultrasound.

“In 12 patients, we were able to palpate a radial pulse, but the ultrasound showed an occlusion of the vessel, while in 7 patients we could not find a radial pulse even though the radial artery was patent on ultrasound,” Dr. Hammami, of the department of cardiology, Hedi Chaker Hospital, Sfax, Tunisia, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The incidence of hemorrhagic complications was higher in the rivaroxaban group (2.7% vs. 1.9%), but the difference did not approach statistical significance (OR, 1.5; P = .54). Moreover, all of the bleeding complications were minor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium level 1), and none of the bleeding complications were observed in patients receiving rivaroxaban alone. Rather, all patients with bleeding were taking one or more antiplatelet drugs along with rivaroxaban.

On univariate analysis, several baseline characteristics were associated with subsequent radial occlusion, including female sex (P = .02), current smoking (P = .03), renal failure (P = .004), and PCI for acute coronary syndrome (P = .02). On multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .001) and current smoking (P < .0001) became even stronger predictors of occlusion on a statistical basis, while a prior procedure involving radial access was also a significant predictor (P = .029).

“One woman out of two developed radial access occlusion if she had a history of smoking and had a history of a transradial puncture,” Dr. Hammami reported.

In a subgroup analysis, relative protection from radial artery occlusion from a 7-day course of rivaroxaban was particularly pronounced in those with diabetes, renal failure, or hypertension relative to those without these conditions, but the protective effect appeared to be about the same regardless of body mass index, age, sheath size, or current use of statins.

These findings are consistent with other studies evaluating the risk of radial access occlusion, according to Dr. Hammami. While different studies she cited reported incidences ranging from less than 1% to more than 30%, the risk has typically been highest in populations with increased susceptibility for thrombus formation, such as smokers and patients with diabetes.

Preventing radial artery occlusion has several benefits, not least of which is preserving this access point for future interventions, according to Dr. Hammami.

RIVARAD is the largest study to evaluate an anticoagulant for the prevention of radial artery occlusion, but it is not the first. Earlier in 2022, a Chinese trial called RESTORE was published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. In that placebo-controlled study of 382 patients, 7 days of 10 mg rivaroxaban was also linked to a significant reduction in radial artery occlusion at 30 days (3.8% vs. 11.5%; P = .011).

“We don’t know if a higher dose of rivaroxaban would be more effective and equally safe,” said Dr. Hammami, but added that a Canadian trial called CAPITAL RAPTOR will test this premise. In this trial, there is a planned enrollment of 1,800 patients who will be randomized to 15 mg rivaroxaban or standard treatment.

Occlusion risk appears underappreciated

The risk of radial artery occlusion might be underappreciated. According to data cited by Dr. Hammami, only about half of interventionalists in the United States and fewer than 10% outside of the United States routinely assess radial artery patency in conjunction with radial-access PCI. The data from this trial suggest that the risk can be substantially reduced, particularly in high-risk patients, with anticoagulant therapy.

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Agreeing that this is a potentially avoidable complication, Roxanna Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the RIVARAD study “a clinically meaningful trial,” and valuable for identifying risk factors as well as for showing a treatment effect and acceptable safety from a short course of a factor Xa inhibitor.

“This is very important work,” said Dr. Mehran, who praised the quality of the study and the contribution it makes for considering how and when prophylaxis is needed.

Dr. Hammami reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehran has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies but none with the sponsor of this trial, which was funded by Philadelphia Pharma, a drug company based in Tunisia.

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.

This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.

The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
 

GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents

Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.

Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.

Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.

He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.

“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
 

Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data

The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.

A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.

Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.

“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.

In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.

The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.

Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect

The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.

“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.

Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).  

Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.

The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.

The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.

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

Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.

This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.

The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
 

GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents

Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.

Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.

Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.

He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.

“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
 

Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data

The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.

A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.

Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.

“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.

In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.

The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.

Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect

The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.

“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.

Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).  

Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.

The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.

The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.

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

Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.

This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.

The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
 

GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents

Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.

Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.

Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.

He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.

“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
 

Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data

The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.

A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.

Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.

“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.

In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.

The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.

Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect

The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.

“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.

Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).  

Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.

The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.

The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.

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

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.

“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.

“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.

Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
 

Empowering data

The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.

After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.

Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.

Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.

Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.

On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.

Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.

Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.

“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.

He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”

“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.

He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.

Transforming technology

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.

Courtesy Yale University

“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.

“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.

“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.

Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
 

Ready for prime time?

In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.

Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”

“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.

He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.

“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”

The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.

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

Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.

“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.

“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.

Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
 

Empowering data

The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.

After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.

Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.

Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.

Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.

On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.

Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.

Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.

“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.

He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”

“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.

He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.

Transforming technology

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.

Courtesy Yale University

“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.

“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.

“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.

Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
 

Ready for prime time?

In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.

Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”

“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.

He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.

“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”

The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.

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

Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.

“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.

“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.

Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
 

Empowering data

The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.

After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.

Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.

Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.

Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.

On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.

Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.

Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.

“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.

He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”

“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.

He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.

Transforming technology

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.

Courtesy Yale University

“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.

“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.

“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.

Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
 

Ready for prime time?

In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.

Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”

“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.

He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.

“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”

The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.

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