Cardiology News

Video-based artificial intelligence provided a more accurate and consistent reading of echocardiograms than did experienced sonographers in a blinded trial, a result suggesting that this technology is no longer experimental.

“We are planning to deploy this at Cedars, so this is essentially ready for use,” said David Ouyang, MD, who is affiliated with the Cedars-Sinai Medical School and is an instructor of cardiology at the University of California, both in Los Angeles.

The primary outcome of this trial, called EchoNet-RCT, was the proportion of cases in which cardiologists changed the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reading by more than 5%. They were blinded to the origin of the reports.

This endpoint was reached in 27.2% of reports generated by sonographers but just 16.8% of reports generated by AI, a mean difference of 10.5% (P < .001).

The AI tested in the trial is called EchoNet-Dynamic. It employs a video-based deep learning algorithm that permits beat-by-beat evaluation of ejection fraction. The specifics of this system were described in a study published 2 years ago in Nature. In that evaluation of the model training set, the absolute error rate was 6% in the more than 10,000 annotated echocardiogram videos.
 

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

Although AI is already being employed for image evaluation in many areas of medicine, the EchoNet-RCT study “is the first blinded trial of AI in cardiology,” Dr. Ouyang said. Indeed, he noted that no prior study has even been randomized.

After a run-in period, 3,495 echocardiograms were randomizly assigned to be read by AI or by a sonographer. The reports generated by these two approaches were then evaluated by the blinded cardiologists. The sonographers and the cardiologists participating in this study had a mean of 14.1 years and 12.7 years of experience, respectively.

Each reading by both sonographers and AI was based on a single beat, but this presumably was a relative handicap for the potential advantage of AI technology, which is capable of evaluating ejection fraction across multiple cardiac cycles. The evaluation of multiple cycles has been shown previously to improve accuracy, but it is tedious and not commonly performed in routine practice, according to Dr. Ouyang.
 

AI favored for all major endpoints

The superiority of AI was calculated after noninferiority was demonstrated. AI also showed superiority for the secondary safety outcome which involved a test-retest evaluation. Historical AI and sonographer echocardiogram reports were again blindly assessed. Although the retest variability was lower for both (6.29% vs. 7.23%), the difference was still highly significant in favor of AI (P < .001)

The relative efficiency of AI to sonographer assessment was also tested and showed meaningful reductions in work time. While AI eliminates the labor of the sonographer completely (0 vs. a median of 119 seconds, P < .001), it was also associated with a highly significant reduction in median cardiologist time spent on echo evaluation (54 vs. 64 seconds, P < .001).

Assuming that AI is integrated into the routine workflow of a busy center, AI “could be very effective at not only improving the quality of echo reading output but also increasing efficiencies in time and effort spent by sonographers and cardiologists by simplifying otherwise tedious but important tasks,” Dr. Ouyang said.

The trial enrolled a relatively typical population. The median age was 66 years, 57% were male, and comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease were common. When AI was compared with sonographer evaluation in groups stratified by these variables as well as by race, image quality, and location of the evaluation (inpatient vs. outpatient), the advantage of AI was consistent.

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

Identifying potential limitations of this study, James D. Thomas, MD, professor of medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, pointed out that it was a single-center trial, and he questioned a potential bias from cardiologists able to guess accurately which of the reports they were evaluating were generated by AI.

Dr. Ouyang acknowledged that this study was limited to patients at UCLA, but he pointed out that the training model was developed at Stanford (Calif.) University, so there were two sets of patients involved in testing the machine learning algorithm. He also noted that it was exceptionally large, providing a robust dataset.

As for the bias, this was evaluated as predefined endpoint.

“We asked the cardiologists to tell us [whether] they knew which reports were generated by AI,” Dr. Ouyang said. In 43% of cases, they reported they were not sure. However, when they did express confidence that the report was generated by AI, they were correct in only 32% of the cases and incorrect in 24%. Dr. Ouyang suggested these numbers argue against a substantial role for a bias affecting the trial results.

Dr. Thomas, who has an interest in the role of AI for cardiology, cautioned that there are “technical, privacy, commercial, maintenance, and regulatory barriers” that must be circumvented before AI is widely incorporated into clinical practice, but he praised this blinded trial for advancing the field. Even accounting for any limitations, he clearly shared Dr. Ouyang’s enthusiasm about the future of AI for EF assessment.

Dr. Ouyang reports financial relationships with EchoIQ, Ultromics, and InVision. Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Abbott, GE, egnite, EchoIQ, and Caption Health.

Video-based artificial intelligence provided a more accurate and consistent reading of echocardiograms than did experienced sonographers in a blinded trial, a result suggesting that this technology is no longer experimental.

“We are planning to deploy this at Cedars, so this is essentially ready for use,” said David Ouyang, MD, who is affiliated with the Cedars-Sinai Medical School and is an instructor of cardiology at the University of California, both in Los Angeles.

The primary outcome of this trial, called EchoNet-RCT, was the proportion of cases in which cardiologists changed the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reading by more than 5%. They were blinded to the origin of the reports.

This endpoint was reached in 27.2% of reports generated by sonographers but just 16.8% of reports generated by AI, a mean difference of 10.5% (P < .001).

The AI tested in the trial is called EchoNet-Dynamic. It employs a video-based deep learning algorithm that permits beat-by-beat evaluation of ejection fraction. The specifics of this system were described in a study published 2 years ago in Nature. In that evaluation of the model training set, the absolute error rate was 6% in the more than 10,000 annotated echocardiogram videos.
 

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

Although AI is already being employed for image evaluation in many areas of medicine, the EchoNet-RCT study “is the first blinded trial of AI in cardiology,” Dr. Ouyang said. Indeed, he noted that no prior study has even been randomized.

After a run-in period, 3,495 echocardiograms were randomizly assigned to be read by AI or by a sonographer. The reports generated by these two approaches were then evaluated by the blinded cardiologists. The sonographers and the cardiologists participating in this study had a mean of 14.1 years and 12.7 years of experience, respectively.

Each reading by both sonographers and AI was based on a single beat, but this presumably was a relative handicap for the potential advantage of AI technology, which is capable of evaluating ejection fraction across multiple cardiac cycles. The evaluation of multiple cycles has been shown previously to improve accuracy, but it is tedious and not commonly performed in routine practice, according to Dr. Ouyang.
 

AI favored for all major endpoints

The superiority of AI was calculated after noninferiority was demonstrated. AI also showed superiority for the secondary safety outcome which involved a test-retest evaluation. Historical AI and sonographer echocardiogram reports were again blindly assessed. Although the retest variability was lower for both (6.29% vs. 7.23%), the difference was still highly significant in favor of AI (P < .001)

The relative efficiency of AI to sonographer assessment was also tested and showed meaningful reductions in work time. While AI eliminates the labor of the sonographer completely (0 vs. a median of 119 seconds, P < .001), it was also associated with a highly significant reduction in median cardiologist time spent on echo evaluation (54 vs. 64 seconds, P < .001).

Assuming that AI is integrated into the routine workflow of a busy center, AI “could be very effective at not only improving the quality of echo reading output but also increasing efficiencies in time and effort spent by sonographers and cardiologists by simplifying otherwise tedious but important tasks,” Dr. Ouyang said.

The trial enrolled a relatively typical population. The median age was 66 years, 57% were male, and comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease were common. When AI was compared with sonographer evaluation in groups stratified by these variables as well as by race, image quality, and location of the evaluation (inpatient vs. outpatient), the advantage of AI was consistent.

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

Identifying potential limitations of this study, James D. Thomas, MD, professor of medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, pointed out that it was a single-center trial, and he questioned a potential bias from cardiologists able to guess accurately which of the reports they were evaluating were generated by AI.

Dr. Ouyang acknowledged that this study was limited to patients at UCLA, but he pointed out that the training model was developed at Stanford (Calif.) University, so there were two sets of patients involved in testing the machine learning algorithm. He also noted that it was exceptionally large, providing a robust dataset.

As for the bias, this was evaluated as predefined endpoint.

“We asked the cardiologists to tell us [whether] they knew which reports were generated by AI,” Dr. Ouyang said. In 43% of cases, they reported they were not sure. However, when they did express confidence that the report was generated by AI, they were correct in only 32% of the cases and incorrect in 24%. Dr. Ouyang suggested these numbers argue against a substantial role for a bias affecting the trial results.

Dr. Thomas, who has an interest in the role of AI for cardiology, cautioned that there are “technical, privacy, commercial, maintenance, and regulatory barriers” that must be circumvented before AI is widely incorporated into clinical practice, but he praised this blinded trial for advancing the field. Even accounting for any limitations, he clearly shared Dr. Ouyang’s enthusiasm about the future of AI for EF assessment.

Dr. Ouyang reports financial relationships with EchoIQ, Ultromics, and InVision. Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Abbott, GE, egnite, EchoIQ, and Caption Health.

Video-based artificial intelligence provided a more accurate and consistent reading of echocardiograms than did experienced sonographers in a blinded trial, a result suggesting that this technology is no longer experimental.

“We are planning to deploy this at Cedars, so this is essentially ready for use,” said David Ouyang, MD, who is affiliated with the Cedars-Sinai Medical School and is an instructor of cardiology at the University of California, both in Los Angeles.

The primary outcome of this trial, called EchoNet-RCT, was the proportion of cases in which cardiologists changed the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reading by more than 5%. They were blinded to the origin of the reports.

This endpoint was reached in 27.2% of reports generated by sonographers but just 16.8% of reports generated by AI, a mean difference of 10.5% (P < .001).

The AI tested in the trial is called EchoNet-Dynamic. It employs a video-based deep learning algorithm that permits beat-by-beat evaluation of ejection fraction. The specifics of this system were described in a study published 2 years ago in Nature. In that evaluation of the model training set, the absolute error rate was 6% in the more than 10,000 annotated echocardiogram videos.
 

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

Although AI is already being employed for image evaluation in many areas of medicine, the EchoNet-RCT study “is the first blinded trial of AI in cardiology,” Dr. Ouyang said. Indeed, he noted that no prior study has even been randomized.

After a run-in period, 3,495 echocardiograms were randomizly assigned to be read by AI or by a sonographer. The reports generated by these two approaches were then evaluated by the blinded cardiologists. The sonographers and the cardiologists participating in this study had a mean of 14.1 years and 12.7 years of experience, respectively.

Each reading by both sonographers and AI was based on a single beat, but this presumably was a relative handicap for the potential advantage of AI technology, which is capable of evaluating ejection fraction across multiple cardiac cycles. The evaluation of multiple cycles has been shown previously to improve accuracy, but it is tedious and not commonly performed in routine practice, according to Dr. Ouyang.
 

AI favored for all major endpoints

The superiority of AI was calculated after noninferiority was demonstrated. AI also showed superiority for the secondary safety outcome which involved a test-retest evaluation. Historical AI and sonographer echocardiogram reports were again blindly assessed. Although the retest variability was lower for both (6.29% vs. 7.23%), the difference was still highly significant in favor of AI (P < .001)

The relative efficiency of AI to sonographer assessment was also tested and showed meaningful reductions in work time. While AI eliminates the labor of the sonographer completely (0 vs. a median of 119 seconds, P < .001), it was also associated with a highly significant reduction in median cardiologist time spent on echo evaluation (54 vs. 64 seconds, P < .001).

Assuming that AI is integrated into the routine workflow of a busy center, AI “could be very effective at not only improving the quality of echo reading output but also increasing efficiencies in time and effort spent by sonographers and cardiologists by simplifying otherwise tedious but important tasks,” Dr. Ouyang said.

The trial enrolled a relatively typical population. The median age was 66 years, 57% were male, and comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease were common. When AI was compared with sonographer evaluation in groups stratified by these variables as well as by race, image quality, and location of the evaluation (inpatient vs. outpatient), the advantage of AI was consistent.

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

Identifying potential limitations of this study, James D. Thomas, MD, professor of medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, pointed out that it was a single-center trial, and he questioned a potential bias from cardiologists able to guess accurately which of the reports they were evaluating were generated by AI.

Dr. Ouyang acknowledged that this study was limited to patients at UCLA, but he pointed out that the training model was developed at Stanford (Calif.) University, so there were two sets of patients involved in testing the machine learning algorithm. He also noted that it was exceptionally large, providing a robust dataset.

As for the bias, this was evaluated as predefined endpoint.

“We asked the cardiologists to tell us [whether] they knew which reports were generated by AI,” Dr. Ouyang said. In 43% of cases, they reported they were not sure. However, when they did express confidence that the report was generated by AI, they were correct in only 32% of the cases and incorrect in 24%. Dr. Ouyang suggested these numbers argue against a substantial role for a bias affecting the trial results.

Dr. Thomas, who has an interest in the role of AI for cardiology, cautioned that there are “technical, privacy, commercial, maintenance, and regulatory barriers” that must be circumvented before AI is widely incorporated into clinical practice, but he praised this blinded trial for advancing the field. Even accounting for any limitations, he clearly shared Dr. Ouyang’s enthusiasm about the future of AI for EF assessment.

Dr. Ouyang reports financial relationships with EchoIQ, Ultromics, and InVision. Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Abbott, GE, egnite, EchoIQ, and Caption Health.

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

BARCELONA – The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) became the third agent from the class to show evidence for efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in results from more than 6,200 randomized patients in the DELIVER trial.

These results proved that dapagliflozin treatment benefits patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular function, when considered in tandem with previously reported findings in the DAPA-HF trial that tested the same drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The DELIVER results for dapagliflozin also highlighted an apparent class effect for heart failure from agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, because of similar, prior findings for two other drugs in the class: empagliflozin (Jardiance) and sotagliflozin (approved in Europe and sold under the name Zynquista).

The upshot, said experts, is that the DELIVER results have further solidified a new paradigm for treating patients with heart failure that is much more agnostic when it comes to left ventricular function and underscores the need to quickly start SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in patients as soon as they receive a heart failure diagnosis, without the need to first measure and consider a patient’s left ventricular ejection fraction.

The new data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said Scott D. Solomon, MD, who presented the primary results from the DELIVER trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous publication of the findings occurred online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

Combined analysis of the DELIVER results with the findings from DAPA-HF in a prespecified analysis that included a total of 11,007 patients with heart failure across the full spectrum of ejection fraction values (with individual patients having values as low as less than 20% or as high as more than 70%) showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment for significantly reducing the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by about 22%, compared with placebo, across the complete range of this ejection fraction continuum.

The consistency of the benefit, regardless of left ventricular function, “is important clinically, as patients often have to wait for a heart scan to measure ejection fraction and decide on which therapies are indicated,” said Pardeep S. Jhund, MBChB, PhD, who reported this analysis in a separate talk at the congress and in a simultaneous publicationonline in Nature Medicine. Provided patients have no contraindications to treatment with dapagliflozin or another evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor, prescribing this class prior to imaging to assess ejection fraction “speeds access to this life-saving medication,” said Dr. Jhund, a professor of cardiology and epidemiology at the University of Glasgow.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

“The striking consistency of effect across the entire ejection fraction range” from SGLT2 inhibitors heralds a “swan song for ejection fraction,” commented Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center of the University Hospital of Zürich and designated discussant for Dr. Vaduganathan’s report. He also predicted that the medical societies that produce recommendations for managing patient with heart failure will soon, based on the accumulated data, give SGLT2 inhibitors a strong recommendation for use on most heart failure patients, sentiments echoed by several other discussants at the meeting and by editorialists who wrote about the newly published studies.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are the bedrock of therapy for heart failure regardless of ejection fraction or care setting,” wrote Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and Janani Rangaswami, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the combined analysis published by Dr. Vaduganathan.

DELIVER was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Jhund has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere. Dr. Rangaswami has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Eli Lilly, and she has been an advisor to Procyrion.

BARCELONA – The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) became the third agent from the class to show evidence for efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in results from more than 6,200 randomized patients in the DELIVER trial.

These results proved that dapagliflozin treatment benefits patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular function, when considered in tandem with previously reported findings in the DAPA-HF trial that tested the same drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The DELIVER results for dapagliflozin also highlighted an apparent class effect for heart failure from agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, because of similar, prior findings for two other drugs in the class: empagliflozin (Jardiance) and sotagliflozin (approved in Europe and sold under the name Zynquista).

The upshot, said experts, is that the DELIVER results have further solidified a new paradigm for treating patients with heart failure that is much more agnostic when it comes to left ventricular function and underscores the need to quickly start SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in patients as soon as they receive a heart failure diagnosis, without the need to first measure and consider a patient’s left ventricular ejection fraction.

The new data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said Scott D. Solomon, MD, who presented the primary results from the DELIVER trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous publication of the findings occurred online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

Combined analysis of the DELIVER results with the findings from DAPA-HF in a prespecified analysis that included a total of 11,007 patients with heart failure across the full spectrum of ejection fraction values (with individual patients having values as low as less than 20% or as high as more than 70%) showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment for significantly reducing the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by about 22%, compared with placebo, across the complete range of this ejection fraction continuum.

The consistency of the benefit, regardless of left ventricular function, “is important clinically, as patients often have to wait for a heart scan to measure ejection fraction and decide on which therapies are indicated,” said Pardeep S. Jhund, MBChB, PhD, who reported this analysis in a separate talk at the congress and in a simultaneous publicationonline in Nature Medicine. Provided patients have no contraindications to treatment with dapagliflozin or another evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor, prescribing this class prior to imaging to assess ejection fraction “speeds access to this life-saving medication,” said Dr. Jhund, a professor of cardiology and epidemiology at the University of Glasgow.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

“The striking consistency of effect across the entire ejection fraction range” from SGLT2 inhibitors heralds a “swan song for ejection fraction,” commented Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center of the University Hospital of Zürich and designated discussant for Dr. Vaduganathan’s report. He also predicted that the medical societies that produce recommendations for managing patient with heart failure will soon, based on the accumulated data, give SGLT2 inhibitors a strong recommendation for use on most heart failure patients, sentiments echoed by several other discussants at the meeting and by editorialists who wrote about the newly published studies.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are the bedrock of therapy for heart failure regardless of ejection fraction or care setting,” wrote Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and Janani Rangaswami, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the combined analysis published by Dr. Vaduganathan.

DELIVER was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Jhund has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere. Dr. Rangaswami has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Eli Lilly, and she has been an advisor to Procyrion.

BARCELONA – The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) became the third agent from the class to show evidence for efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in results from more than 6,200 randomized patients in the DELIVER trial.

These results proved that dapagliflozin treatment benefits patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular function, when considered in tandem with previously reported findings in the DAPA-HF trial that tested the same drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The DELIVER results for dapagliflozin also highlighted an apparent class effect for heart failure from agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, because of similar, prior findings for two other drugs in the class: empagliflozin (Jardiance) and sotagliflozin (approved in Europe and sold under the name Zynquista).

The upshot, said experts, is that the DELIVER results have further solidified a new paradigm for treating patients with heart failure that is much more agnostic when it comes to left ventricular function and underscores the need to quickly start SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in patients as soon as they receive a heart failure diagnosis, without the need to first measure and consider a patient’s left ventricular ejection fraction.

The new data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said Scott D. Solomon, MD, who presented the primary results from the DELIVER trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous publication of the findings occurred online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Combined analyses document consistency

Combined analysis of the DELIVER results with the findings from DAPA-HF in a prespecified analysis that included a total of 11,007 patients with heart failure across the full spectrum of ejection fraction values (with individual patients having values as low as less than 20% or as high as more than 70%) showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment for significantly reducing the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by about 22%, compared with placebo, across the complete range of this ejection fraction continuum.

The consistency of the benefit, regardless of left ventricular function, “is important clinically, as patients often have to wait for a heart scan to measure ejection fraction and decide on which therapies are indicated,” said Pardeep S. Jhund, MBChB, PhD, who reported this analysis in a separate talk at the congress and in a simultaneous publicationonline in Nature Medicine. Provided patients have no contraindications to treatment with dapagliflozin or another evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor, prescribing this class prior to imaging to assess ejection fraction “speeds access to this life-saving medication,” said Dr. Jhund, a professor of cardiology and epidemiology at the University of Glasgow.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

A ‘swan song’ for ejection fraction

“The striking consistency of effect across the entire ejection fraction range” from SGLT2 inhibitors heralds a “swan song for ejection fraction,” commented Frank Ruschitzka, MD, director of the Heart Center of the University Hospital of Zürich and designated discussant for Dr. Vaduganathan’s report. He also predicted that the medical societies that produce recommendations for managing patient with heart failure will soon, based on the accumulated data, give SGLT2 inhibitors a strong recommendation for use on most heart failure patients, sentiments echoed by several other discussants at the meeting and by editorialists who wrote about the newly published studies.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are the bedrock of therapy for heart failure regardless of ejection fraction or care setting,” wrote Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and Janani Rangaswami, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the combined analysis published by Dr. Vaduganathan.

DELIVER was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Jhund has received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and numerous other companies. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere. Dr. Rangaswami has been a consultant to AstraZeneca as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Eli Lilly, and she has been an advisor to Procyrion.

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• High-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes.

Why this matters

• The influence of furosemide on prognosis after cardiac surgery is not fully understood.
• The current findings suggest that high-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased risk for death and other adverse events and therefore should be used cautiously in that setting.

Study design

• The retrospective cohort of 6,752 cardiac surgery patients was divided into two groups according to average daily furosemide dosage after cardiac surgery: less than 20 mg (low-dose group, n = 6,033) and at least 20 mg (high-dose group, n = 719).
• The group were compared for total furosemide dose, total furosemide dose of at least 200 mg, total dose of furosemide by patient weight, and average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg.
• The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mortality at 1 year after cardiac surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
• The study excluded patients aged younger than 18 whose weight data was missing or who had more than 5% of their data missing.

Key results

• Patients in the high-dose furosemide group tended to be older and have a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher rates of diabetes, chronic pulmonary diseases, heart failure, renal failure, blood transfusion, vasopressor use, and valvular surgery.
• They also tended have higher white cell counts and higher levels of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glucose, and lactate.
• Those in the high-dose group also were on vasopressors and ventilatory support longer.
• In adjusted multivariate analysis, increased in-hospital mortality was associated with average daily furosemide dose, average daily dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• Increased mortality at 1 year was associated with total furosemide dose and average daily furosemide dose.
• Significant multivariate predictors of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours after cardiac surgery included total furosemide dose, total dose by weight, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• In subgroup analyses, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d significantly increased risk for in-hospital mortality among patients younger than 60 years or with BMI of at least 28 who received vasopressors or blood transfusions, those with renal failure, and those with heart failure not involving congestion.

Limitations

• No limitations were discussed.

Disclosures

• The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Jiangsu Postdoctoral Science Foundation.
• The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Association between furosemide administration and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” from Jinghang Li, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing (China) Medical University, and colleagues on published on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• High-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes.

Why this matters

• The influence of furosemide on prognosis after cardiac surgery is not fully understood.
• The current findings suggest that high-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased risk for death and other adverse events and therefore should be used cautiously in that setting.

Study design

• The retrospective cohort of 6,752 cardiac surgery patients was divided into two groups according to average daily furosemide dosage after cardiac surgery: less than 20 mg (low-dose group, n = 6,033) and at least 20 mg (high-dose group, n = 719).
• The group were compared for total furosemide dose, total furosemide dose of at least 200 mg, total dose of furosemide by patient weight, and average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg.
• The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mortality at 1 year after cardiac surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
• The study excluded patients aged younger than 18 whose weight data was missing or who had more than 5% of their data missing.

Key results

• Patients in the high-dose furosemide group tended to be older and have a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher rates of diabetes, chronic pulmonary diseases, heart failure, renal failure, blood transfusion, vasopressor use, and valvular surgery.
• They also tended have higher white cell counts and higher levels of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glucose, and lactate.
• Those in the high-dose group also were on vasopressors and ventilatory support longer.
• In adjusted multivariate analysis, increased in-hospital mortality was associated with average daily furosemide dose, average daily dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• Increased mortality at 1 year was associated with total furosemide dose and average daily furosemide dose.
• Significant multivariate predictors of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours after cardiac surgery included total furosemide dose, total dose by weight, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• In subgroup analyses, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d significantly increased risk for in-hospital mortality among patients younger than 60 years or with BMI of at least 28 who received vasopressors or blood transfusions, those with renal failure, and those with heart failure not involving congestion.

Limitations

• No limitations were discussed.

Disclosures

• The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Jiangsu Postdoctoral Science Foundation.
• The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Association between furosemide administration and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” from Jinghang Li, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing (China) Medical University, and colleagues on published on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• High-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes.

Why this matters

• The influence of furosemide on prognosis after cardiac surgery is not fully understood.
• The current findings suggest that high-dose furosemide after cardiac surgery is associated with increased risk for death and other adverse events and therefore should be used cautiously in that setting.

Study design

• The retrospective cohort of 6,752 cardiac surgery patients was divided into two groups according to average daily furosemide dosage after cardiac surgery: less than 20 mg (low-dose group, n = 6,033) and at least 20 mg (high-dose group, n = 719).
• The group were compared for total furosemide dose, total furosemide dose of at least 200 mg, total dose of furosemide by patient weight, and average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg.
• The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mortality at 1 year after cardiac surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
• The study excluded patients aged younger than 18 whose weight data was missing or who had more than 5% of their data missing.

Key results

• Patients in the high-dose furosemide group tended to be older and have a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher rates of diabetes, chronic pulmonary diseases, heart failure, renal failure, blood transfusion, vasopressor use, and valvular surgery.
• They also tended have higher white cell counts and higher levels of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glucose, and lactate.
• Those in the high-dose group also were on vasopressors and ventilatory support longer.
• In adjusted multivariate analysis, increased in-hospital mortality was associated with average daily furosemide dose, average daily dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• Increased mortality at 1 year was associated with total furosemide dose and average daily furosemide dose.
• Significant multivariate predictors of hospital stay of at least 14 days, length of ICU stay of at least 3 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours after cardiac surgery included total furosemide dose, total dose by weight, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d, and total dose of at least 200 mg.
• In subgroup analyses, average daily furosemide dose of at least 20 mg/d significantly increased risk for in-hospital mortality among patients younger than 60 years or with BMI of at least 28 who received vasopressors or blood transfusions, those with renal failure, and those with heart failure not involving congestion.

Limitations

• No limitations were discussed.

Disclosures

• The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Jiangsu Postdoctoral Science Foundation.
• The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Association between furosemide administration and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” from Jinghang Li, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing (China) Medical University, and colleagues on published on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A multibiomarker risk score helps predict increased risk for future cardiovascular (CV) events as well as high-risk anatomy at revascularization in stable patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a FOURIER trial analysis suggests.

The risk score incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).

These routine biomarkers of inflammation and fibrosis, ventricular strain, and myocardial injury are individually associated with incident CV in stable ASCVD and were shown in earlier work to be a multimarker score to predict CV events in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome in the IMPROVE-IT trial.

Validating the score, however, wasn’t really the intent here, explained senior author Brian Bergmark, MD, with the TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“We know broadly speaking people with high troponin, BNP, et cetera, are going to have broadly defined clinical events like MIs [myocardial infarctions], death. And we also know on a granular level at a single time point that people who, for example, get a coronary CT scan and have a contemporary troponin level tend to have a little bit more coronary disease,” he said.

“But that leaves this broad swath of, what if we follow people over time? Can biomarkers in some form actually predict specific coronary anatomical characteristics and revascularization procedures in conjunction with clinical events?” Dr. Bergmark continued. “That’s sort of an untouched link or translational step between some of the granular data and these clinical events.”

As published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the post hoc study analyzed baseline blood samples from 21,644 FOURIER participants and adapted the previously studied multimarker score to use hsTnI in place of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT). One point was assigned for each elevated biomarker: hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L, NT-proBNP ≥ 450 pg/mL, hsTnI ≥ 6 ng/L, and GDF-15 ≥ 1,800 pg/mL.

A total of 6,444 patients had a low score (0 points), 12,439 an intermediate score (1-2 points), and 2,761 a high score (3-4 points). Patients with higher biomarker scores were older and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, multiple prior MIs, heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and peripheral artery disease but were less likely to have prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Results showed a stepwise increase in 3-year risk for major coronary events (coronary death, MI, or coronary revascularization) from 7.3% with a low score to 11.3% with an intermediate score and 21.0% with a high score. A near tripling of risk remained in those with a high score after adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.90).

Individuals with a high score had twice the risk for any coronary revascularization (HR, 2.10) and complex revascularization (HR, 2.07), as well as increased risks for complex PCI (HR, 1.80), CABG (HR, 2.57), and in-stent restenosis (ISR) revascularization (HR, 1.78).

The study is the first to show an association of these biomarkers with future ISR revascularization in a broad cohort of patients with stable ASCVD, the investigators observe.

It could be a random signal, but “it’s one piece of data as people start to look at other datasets, as we start to understand who’s at risk for ISR, as we understand this disease entity that’s really a pandemic at this point,” Dr. Bergmark said, “I think this is one piece of the puzzle that’s novel.”

Compared with those with a low score, patients with a high biomarker score had significantly higher risks for left main disease greater than 50% (HR, 2.22; P = .003), multivessel disease (HR, 1.99; P < .001), and chronic total occlusion (HR, 2.50; P < .001) at the time of revascularization.

There was no significant interaction between the biomarker score and the effect of evolocumab used in the trial; however, the assessment had limited statistical power, the authors note.

Dr. Bergmark said that the results can inform trial design to select a population at risk for specific types of events and when trying to risk adjust in a population for reimbursement purposes to understand quality metrics, for example, for people coming back with ISR.

“I think refining risk estimates has broad applicability clinically and academically,” he added. “This is one step, with one dataset, pushing these typically broad clinical endpoints to be more specific.”

In an related editorial, Giles Montalescot, MD, PhD, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, and colleagues write, “Not only does this study validate the multibiomarker score in a new cohort of patients and with new coronary-focused outcomes, but it also opens novel and interesting avenues, on a global approach of cardiovascular risk.”

Possibilities include using this or another multibiomarker risk score to streamline enrichment or selection criteria for a trial or as a surrogate endpoint in proof-of-concept trials to test a new drug aimed at reducing CV risk.

“Beyond clinical research, we could imagine in the future to base our therapeutic decisions on such a score, just like we decide anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation according to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,” the editorialists say.

This being said, Dr. Montalescot and colleagues point out that the current multibiomarker risk score assigned equal prognostic value to each of the components, whereas IMPROVE-IT and FOURIER both showed that elevated hsTnT and NT-proBNP were associated with much higher hazard ratios than hsCRP and GDF-15.

Other limitations, they say, are that the categorical nature of the variables, albeit user friendly, prevent any subtle analysis; the score does not include biological risk factors; and questions remain about the impact of the lipid-lowering intervention across risk categories.

FOURIER was funded by Amgen. The TIMI Study Group has received institutional grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr. Bergmark reports grant support from Pfizer, Ionis, AstraZeneca, and Abbott Vascular; and consulting fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, Servier, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Quark Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Montalescot reports research grants to his institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cell Prothera, CSL Behring, Europa, Idorsia, IRIS-Servier, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.

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

A multibiomarker risk score helps predict increased risk for future cardiovascular (CV) events as well as high-risk anatomy at revascularization in stable patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a FOURIER trial analysis suggests.

The risk score incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).

These routine biomarkers of inflammation and fibrosis, ventricular strain, and myocardial injury are individually associated with incident CV in stable ASCVD and were shown in earlier work to be a multimarker score to predict CV events in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome in the IMPROVE-IT trial.

Validating the score, however, wasn’t really the intent here, explained senior author Brian Bergmark, MD, with the TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“We know broadly speaking people with high troponin, BNP, et cetera, are going to have broadly defined clinical events like MIs [myocardial infarctions], death. And we also know on a granular level at a single time point that people who, for example, get a coronary CT scan and have a contemporary troponin level tend to have a little bit more coronary disease,” he said.

“But that leaves this broad swath of, what if we follow people over time? Can biomarkers in some form actually predict specific coronary anatomical characteristics and revascularization procedures in conjunction with clinical events?” Dr. Bergmark continued. “That’s sort of an untouched link or translational step between some of the granular data and these clinical events.”

As published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the post hoc study analyzed baseline blood samples from 21,644 FOURIER participants and adapted the previously studied multimarker score to use hsTnI in place of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT). One point was assigned for each elevated biomarker: hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L, NT-proBNP ≥ 450 pg/mL, hsTnI ≥ 6 ng/L, and GDF-15 ≥ 1,800 pg/mL.

A total of 6,444 patients had a low score (0 points), 12,439 an intermediate score (1-2 points), and 2,761 a high score (3-4 points). Patients with higher biomarker scores were older and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, multiple prior MIs, heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and peripheral artery disease but were less likely to have prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Results showed a stepwise increase in 3-year risk for major coronary events (coronary death, MI, or coronary revascularization) from 7.3% with a low score to 11.3% with an intermediate score and 21.0% with a high score. A near tripling of risk remained in those with a high score after adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.90).

Individuals with a high score had twice the risk for any coronary revascularization (HR, 2.10) and complex revascularization (HR, 2.07), as well as increased risks for complex PCI (HR, 1.80), CABG (HR, 2.57), and in-stent restenosis (ISR) revascularization (HR, 1.78).

The study is the first to show an association of these biomarkers with future ISR revascularization in a broad cohort of patients with stable ASCVD, the investigators observe.

It could be a random signal, but “it’s one piece of data as people start to look at other datasets, as we start to understand who’s at risk for ISR, as we understand this disease entity that’s really a pandemic at this point,” Dr. Bergmark said, “I think this is one piece of the puzzle that’s novel.”

Compared with those with a low score, patients with a high biomarker score had significantly higher risks for left main disease greater than 50% (HR, 2.22; P = .003), multivessel disease (HR, 1.99; P < .001), and chronic total occlusion (HR, 2.50; P < .001) at the time of revascularization.

There was no significant interaction between the biomarker score and the effect of evolocumab used in the trial; however, the assessment had limited statistical power, the authors note.

Dr. Bergmark said that the results can inform trial design to select a population at risk for specific types of events and when trying to risk adjust in a population for reimbursement purposes to understand quality metrics, for example, for people coming back with ISR.

“I think refining risk estimates has broad applicability clinically and academically,” he added. “This is one step, with one dataset, pushing these typically broad clinical endpoints to be more specific.”

In an related editorial, Giles Montalescot, MD, PhD, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, and colleagues write, “Not only does this study validate the multibiomarker score in a new cohort of patients and with new coronary-focused outcomes, but it also opens novel and interesting avenues, on a global approach of cardiovascular risk.”

Possibilities include using this or another multibiomarker risk score to streamline enrichment or selection criteria for a trial or as a surrogate endpoint in proof-of-concept trials to test a new drug aimed at reducing CV risk.

“Beyond clinical research, we could imagine in the future to base our therapeutic decisions on such a score, just like we decide anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation according to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,” the editorialists say.

This being said, Dr. Montalescot and colleagues point out that the current multibiomarker risk score assigned equal prognostic value to each of the components, whereas IMPROVE-IT and FOURIER both showed that elevated hsTnT and NT-proBNP were associated with much higher hazard ratios than hsCRP and GDF-15.

Other limitations, they say, are that the categorical nature of the variables, albeit user friendly, prevent any subtle analysis; the score does not include biological risk factors; and questions remain about the impact of the lipid-lowering intervention across risk categories.

FOURIER was funded by Amgen. The TIMI Study Group has received institutional grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr. Bergmark reports grant support from Pfizer, Ionis, AstraZeneca, and Abbott Vascular; and consulting fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, Servier, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Quark Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Montalescot reports research grants to his institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cell Prothera, CSL Behring, Europa, Idorsia, IRIS-Servier, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.

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

A multibiomarker risk score helps predict increased risk for future cardiovascular (CV) events as well as high-risk anatomy at revascularization in stable patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a FOURIER trial analysis suggests.

The risk score incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).

These routine biomarkers of inflammation and fibrosis, ventricular strain, and myocardial injury are individually associated with incident CV in stable ASCVD and were shown in earlier work to be a multimarker score to predict CV events in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome in the IMPROVE-IT trial.

Validating the score, however, wasn’t really the intent here, explained senior author Brian Bergmark, MD, with the TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“We know broadly speaking people with high troponin, BNP, et cetera, are going to have broadly defined clinical events like MIs [myocardial infarctions], death. And we also know on a granular level at a single time point that people who, for example, get a coronary CT scan and have a contemporary troponin level tend to have a little bit more coronary disease,” he said.

“But that leaves this broad swath of, what if we follow people over time? Can biomarkers in some form actually predict specific coronary anatomical characteristics and revascularization procedures in conjunction with clinical events?” Dr. Bergmark continued. “That’s sort of an untouched link or translational step between some of the granular data and these clinical events.”

As published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the post hoc study analyzed baseline blood samples from 21,644 FOURIER participants and adapted the previously studied multimarker score to use hsTnI in place of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT). One point was assigned for each elevated biomarker: hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L, NT-proBNP ≥ 450 pg/mL, hsTnI ≥ 6 ng/L, and GDF-15 ≥ 1,800 pg/mL.

A total of 6,444 patients had a low score (0 points), 12,439 an intermediate score (1-2 points), and 2,761 a high score (3-4 points). Patients with higher biomarker scores were older and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, multiple prior MIs, heart failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and peripheral artery disease but were less likely to have prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Results showed a stepwise increase in 3-year risk for major coronary events (coronary death, MI, or coronary revascularization) from 7.3% with a low score to 11.3% with an intermediate score and 21.0% with a high score. A near tripling of risk remained in those with a high score after adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.90).

Individuals with a high score had twice the risk for any coronary revascularization (HR, 2.10) and complex revascularization (HR, 2.07), as well as increased risks for complex PCI (HR, 1.80), CABG (HR, 2.57), and in-stent restenosis (ISR) revascularization (HR, 1.78).

The study is the first to show an association of these biomarkers with future ISR revascularization in a broad cohort of patients with stable ASCVD, the investigators observe.

It could be a random signal, but “it’s one piece of data as people start to look at other datasets, as we start to understand who’s at risk for ISR, as we understand this disease entity that’s really a pandemic at this point,” Dr. Bergmark said, “I think this is one piece of the puzzle that’s novel.”

Compared with those with a low score, patients with a high biomarker score had significantly higher risks for left main disease greater than 50% (HR, 2.22; P = .003), multivessel disease (HR, 1.99; P < .001), and chronic total occlusion (HR, 2.50; P < .001) at the time of revascularization.

There was no significant interaction between the biomarker score and the effect of evolocumab used in the trial; however, the assessment had limited statistical power, the authors note.

Dr. Bergmark said that the results can inform trial design to select a population at risk for specific types of events and when trying to risk adjust in a population for reimbursement purposes to understand quality metrics, for example, for people coming back with ISR.

“I think refining risk estimates has broad applicability clinically and academically,” he added. “This is one step, with one dataset, pushing these typically broad clinical endpoints to be more specific.”

In an related editorial, Giles Montalescot, MD, PhD, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, and colleagues write, “Not only does this study validate the multibiomarker score in a new cohort of patients and with new coronary-focused outcomes, but it also opens novel and interesting avenues, on a global approach of cardiovascular risk.”

Possibilities include using this or another multibiomarker risk score to streamline enrichment or selection criteria for a trial or as a surrogate endpoint in proof-of-concept trials to test a new drug aimed at reducing CV risk.

“Beyond clinical research, we could imagine in the future to base our therapeutic decisions on such a score, just like we decide anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation according to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,” the editorialists say.

This being said, Dr. Montalescot and colleagues point out that the current multibiomarker risk score assigned equal prognostic value to each of the components, whereas IMPROVE-IT and FOURIER both showed that elevated hsTnT and NT-proBNP were associated with much higher hazard ratios than hsCRP and GDF-15.

Other limitations, they say, are that the categorical nature of the variables, albeit user friendly, prevent any subtle analysis; the score does not include biological risk factors; and questions remain about the impact of the lipid-lowering intervention across risk categories.

FOURIER was funded by Amgen. The TIMI Study Group has received institutional grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr. Bergmark reports grant support from Pfizer, Ionis, AstraZeneca, and Abbott Vascular; and consulting fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, Servier, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Quark Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Montalescot reports research grants to his institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cell Prothera, CSL Behring, Europa, Idorsia, IRIS-Servier, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.

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

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Compared with separate medications in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a single pill containing aspirin, a lipid-lowering agent, and an ACE inhibitor provided progressively greater protection from a second cardiovascular (CV) event over the course of a trial with several years of follow-up, according to results of a multinational trial.

“The curves began to separate at the very beginning of the trial, and they are continuing to separate, so we can begin to project the possibility that the results would be even more striking if we had an even longer follow-up,” said Valentin Fuster, MD, physician in chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

By “striking,” Dr. Fuster was referring to a 24% reduction in the hazard ratio of major adverse CV events (MACE) for a trial in which patients were followed for a median of 3 years. The primary composite endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization (HR, 0.76; P = .02).

AS for the secondary composite endpoint, confined to CV death, MI, and stroke, use of the polypill linked to an even greater relative advantage over usual care (HR, 0.70; P = .005).
 

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

A polypill strategy has been pursued for more than 15 years, according to Dr. Fuster. Other polypill studies have also generated positive results, but the latest trial, called SECURE, is the largest prospective randomized trial to evaluate a single pill combining multiple therapies for secondary prevention.

The degree of relative benefit has “huge implications for clinical care,” reported the ESC-invited commentator, Louise Bowman, MBBS, MD, professor of medicine and clinical trials, University of Oxford (England). She called the findings “in line with what was expected,” but she agreed that the results will drive practice change.

The SECURE trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine at the time of its presentation at the ESC congress, randomized 2,499 patients over the age of 65 years who had a MI within the previous 6 months and at least one other risk factor, such as diabetes mellitus, kidney dysfunction, or a prior coronary revascularization. They were enrolled at 113 participating study centers in seven European countries.

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

The polypill consisted of aspirin in a fixed dose of 100 mg, the HMG CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin, and the ACE inhibitor ramipril. For atorvastatin and ramipril, the target doses were 40 mg and 10 mg, respectively, but different versions of the polypill were available to permit titration to a tolerated dose. Usual care was provided by participating investigators according to ESC recommendations.

The average age of those enrolled was 76 years. Nearly one-third (31%) were women. At baseline, most had hypertension (77.9%), and the majority had diabetes (57.4%).

When the events in the primary endpoint were assessed individually, the polypill was associated with a 33% relative reduction in the risk of CV death (HR, 0.67; P = .03). The reductions in the risk of nonfatal MI (HR, 0.71) and stroke (HR, 0.70) were of the same general magnitude although they did not reach statistical significance. There was no meaningful reduction in urgent revascularization (HR, 0.96).

In addition, the reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97) was not significant.

The rate of adverse events over the course of the study was 32.7% in the polypill group and 31.6% in the usual-care group, which did not differ significantly. There was also no difference in types of adverse events, including bleeding and other adverse events of interest, according to Dr. Fuster.

Adherence, which was monitored at 6 and 24 months using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, was characterized as low, medium, or high. More patients in the polypill group reached high adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and at 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%). Conversely, fewer patients in the polypill group were deemed to have low adherence at both time points.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Dr. Fuster said. Although there were no substantial differences in lipid levels or in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the two groups when compared at 24 months, there are several theories that might explain the lower event rates in the polypill group, including a more sustained anti-inflammatory effect from greater adherence.

One potential limitation was the open-label design, but Dr. Bowman said that this was unavoidable, given the difficulty of blinding and the fact that comparing a single pill with multiple pills was “the point of the study.” She noted that the 14% withdrawal rate over the course of the trial, which was attributed largely to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lower than planned enrollment (2,500 vs. a projected 3,000 patients) are also limitations, prohibiting “a more robust result,” but she did not dispute the conclusions.

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

While acknowledging these limitations, Dr. Fuster emphasized the consistency of these results with prior polypill studies and within the study. Of the 16 predefined subgroups, such as those created with stratifications for age, sex, comorbidities, and country of treatment, all benefited to a similar degree.

“This really validates the importance of the study,” Dr. Fuster said.

In addition to the implications for risk management globally, Dr. Fuster and others, including Dr. Bowman, spoke of the potential of a relatively inexpensive polypill to improve care in resource-limited settings. Despite the move toward greater personalization of medicine, Dr. Fuster called “simplicity the key to global health” initiatives.

American Heart Association

Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, a leader in international polypill research, agreed. He believes the supportive data for this approach are conclusive.

“There are four positive trials of the polypill now and collectively the data are overwhelmingly clear,” Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The polypill should be considered in secondary prevention as well as in primary prevention for high-risk individuals. We have estimated that, if it is used in even 50% of those who should get it, it would avoid 2 million premature deaths from CV disease and 6 million nonfatal events. The next step is to implement the findings.”

Dr. Fuster, Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Yusuf reported no potential conflicts of interest.

The wife of a Northern California congressman died late in 2021 after ingesting a plant that is generally considered safe and is used as an herbal remedy for a variety of ailments, including diabetes, obesity, and high cholesterol.

Lori McClintock, the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, died from dehydration due to gastroenteritis – an inflammation of the stomach and intestines – that was caused by “adverse effects of white mulberry leaf ingestion,” according to a report from the Sacramento County coroner that is dated March 10 but was not immediately released to the public. KHN obtained that report – in addition to the autopsy report and an amended death certificate containing an updated cause of death – in July.

The coroner’s office ruled her death an accident. The original death certificate, dated Dec. 20, 2021, listed the cause of death as “pending.”

Tom McClintock, a Republican who represents a district that spans multiple counties in northern and central California, found his 61-year-old wife unresponsive at their Elk Grove, Calif., home on Dec. 15, 2021, according to the coroner’s report. He had just returned from Washington after voting in Congress the night before.

It’s unclear from the autopsy report whether Lori McClintock took a dietary supplement containing white mulberry leaf, ate fresh or dried leaves, or drank them in a tea, but a “partially intact” white mulberry leaf was found in her stomach, according to the report.

Ms. McClintock’s death underscores the risks of the vast, booming market of dietary supplements and herbal remedies, which have grown into a $54 billion industry in the United States – one that both lawmakers and health care experts say needs more government scrutiny.

“Many people assume if that product is sold in the United States of America, somebody has inspected it, and it must be safe. Unfortunately, that’s not always true,” U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor this spring when he introduced legislation to strengthen oversight of dietary supplements.

Daniel Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, which represents the dietary supplements industry, questioned whether Ms. McClintock’s death was related to a supplement.

“It’s completely speculative. There’s a science to this. It’s not just what a coroner feels,” said Mr. Fabricant, who oversaw dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration during the Obama administration. “People unfortunately pass from dehydration every day, and there’s a lot of different reasons and a lot of different causes.”

Mr. Fabricant said it would have been ideal had the coroner or the family reported her death to the FDA so the agency could have launched an investigation.

Such reports are voluntary, and it’s not clear whether anyone reported her death to the agency. FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes said the agency does not discuss possible or ongoing investigations.

The FDA, Mr. Fabricant added, has a system in place to investigate deaths that might be linked to a supplement or drug. “It’s casework,” he said. “It’s good, old-fashioned police work that needs to be done.”

Tom McClintock has remained mostly silent about his wife’s death since he released a statement on Dec. 19, 2021, announcing it and gave a tribute to her at her Jan. 4 funeral. Until now, the cause of death had not been reported.

Mr. McClintock, contacted multiple times by phone and email Wednesday, was not immediately available for comment.

At his wife’s funeral, McClintock told mourners that she was fine when he spoke with her the day before he returned. She had told a friend that “she was on a roll” at a new job she loved in a Sacramento real estate office, he said, and “she was carefully dieting.”

“She just joined a gym,” he said. “At home, she was counting down the days to Christmas, wrapping all the gifts and making all the plans to make it the best family Christmas ever, and it would have been.”

According to the coroner’s report, however, the day before her death, “she had complaints of an upset stomach.”

Sacramento County spokesperson Kim Nava said via email Wednesday that the law prohibits the coroner’s office from discussing many details of specific cases. As part of any death investigation, the office “attempts to locate and review medical records and speak to family/witnesses to establish events leading up to and surrounding a death,” she said.

If any medications or supplements are found at the scene or if pertinent information is in the person’s medical records, those are passed along to the pathologist to help establish cause of death, Ms. Nava said.

“Any information the office obtains from medical records can’t be disseminated to a third party except by court order,” she said.

The leaves and fruit of the white mulberry tree, which is native to China, have been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Academic studies over the past decade have found that the extract from its leaves can lower blood sugar levels and help with weight loss. People take it in capsule or pill form, as an extract or powder. They can also brew the leaves as an herbal tea.

Lori McClintock’s reaction seems unusual. No deaths from the white mulberry plant have been reported to poison control officials in the past 10 years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Since 2012, 148 cases of white mulberry plant ingestion were voluntarily reported to poison control officials nationally, most involving accidental ingestion by children 12 and under, said Kaitlyn Brown, clinical managing director for the association. Only one case required medical follow-up, she said.

While poison control centers track exposures to the white mulberry plant, the FDA oversees dietary supplements, such as products that contain white mulberry leaf extract. Since 2004, two cases of people sickened by mulberry supplements have been reported to the FDA, according to its database that tracks “adverse events.” It relies heavily on voluntary reports from health care professionals and consumers. At least one of those cases led to hospitalization.

White mulberry leaf can have side effects, including nausea and diarrhea, according to research. Independent lab tests ordered by the coroner’s office showed Ms. McClintock’s body had elevated levels of nitrogen, sodium, and creatinine – all signs of dehydration, according to three pathologists who reviewed the coroner’s documents, which KHN redacted to remove Ms. McClintock’s name.

White mulberry leaves “do tend to cause dehydration, and part of the uses for that can be to help someone lose weight, mostly through fluid loss, which in this case was just kind of excessive,” said D’Michelle DuPre, MD, a retired forensic pathologist and a former medical examiner in South Carolina who reviewed the documents.

Dietary supplements, which include a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are regulated by the FDA. However, they are classified as food and don’t undergo the rigorous scientific and safety testing the government requires of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines.

Lawmakers aren’t proposing to put supplements into the same category as pharmaceuticals, but some say they are alarmed that neither the FDA nor the industry knows how many dietary supplements are out there – making it almost impossible for the government to oversee them and punish bad actors.

The FDA estimates 40,000 to 80,000 supplement products are on the market in the United States, and industry surveys estimate 80% of Americans use them.

Legislation by Sen. Durbin and U.S. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) would require manufacturers to register with the FDA and provide a public list of ingredients in their products, two provisions that are backed by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, another industry group that represents supplement makers.

But the council is lobbying against a provision that would require supplement makers to provide consumers with the ingredient amounts – or the blend – in their products, something they say is akin to giving a recipe to competitors. That’s proprietary information only government regulators should have access to, said Megan Olsen, the group’s senior vice president and general counsel.

Ms. Olsen explained that supplement manufacturers are regulated just like other food companies and are subject to strict labeling requirements and inspections by the FDA. They also must inform the agency about any adverse effects reported by consumers or doctors.

“Companies are testing products throughout the process, are reviewing how they’re being manufactured and what’s going into them,” Ms. Olsen said. “All of that is overseen and dictated by FDA regulation.”

The dietary supplement provisions were rolled into a larger Senate health committee bill that reauthorizes FDA programs, and senators are currently in negotiations with the House of Representatives. The Natural Products Association opposes all of the dietary supplement provisions.

Because dietary pills, teas, and other supplements are regulated as food products, manufacturers can’t advertise them as treatments or cures for health issues. But they can make claims about how the supplements affect the body. So someone who wants to lose weight or get their diabetes under control might reach for a bottle of white mulberry leaf extract because some supplement makers advertise it as a natural remedy that can lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.

Those kinds of claims are appealing to Americans and have been especially potent during the pandemic, as people sought to boost their immune systems and fend off COVID-19, said Debbie Petitpain, a registered dietitian nutritionist and a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

But dietary supplements can be dangerous and don’t affect everyone the same way. Mixing supplements and prescription medicines can compound the problem, according to the FDA.

“I think a lot of people are thinking, ‘Oh, it’s a plant.’ Or, ‘Oh, it’s just a vitamin. Certainly, that means that it’s not going to hurt me,’ ” Ms. Petitpain said. “But there’s always a risk for taking anything.”

It’s not clear why Lori McClintock was taking white mulberry leaf. Friends and family who gathered for her funeral described a vibrant, happy woman who loved her family and her work and already had wrapped Christmas presents under the tree in mid-December. She was planning to buy a recreational vehicle with her husband in retirement.

“We grieve the loss because of all the things she was looking forward to doing and all the years yet ahead,” Tom McClintock told mourners. “And we grieve for something else, because we’ve all lost a genuinely good person in our lives.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The wife of a Northern California congressman died late in 2021 after ingesting a plant that is generally considered safe and is used as an herbal remedy for a variety of ailments, including diabetes, obesity, and high cholesterol.

Lori McClintock, the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, died from dehydration due to gastroenteritis – an inflammation of the stomach and intestines – that was caused by “adverse effects of white mulberry leaf ingestion,” according to a report from the Sacramento County coroner that is dated March 10 but was not immediately released to the public. KHN obtained that report – in addition to the autopsy report and an amended death certificate containing an updated cause of death – in July.

The coroner’s office ruled her death an accident. The original death certificate, dated Dec. 20, 2021, listed the cause of death as “pending.”

Tom McClintock, a Republican who represents a district that spans multiple counties in northern and central California, found his 61-year-old wife unresponsive at their Elk Grove, Calif., home on Dec. 15, 2021, according to the coroner’s report. He had just returned from Washington after voting in Congress the night before.

It’s unclear from the autopsy report whether Lori McClintock took a dietary supplement containing white mulberry leaf, ate fresh or dried leaves, or drank them in a tea, but a “partially intact” white mulberry leaf was found in her stomach, according to the report.

Ms. McClintock’s death underscores the risks of the vast, booming market of dietary supplements and herbal remedies, which have grown into a $54 billion industry in the United States – one that both lawmakers and health care experts say needs more government scrutiny.

“Many people assume if that product is sold in the United States of America, somebody has inspected it, and it must be safe. Unfortunately, that’s not always true,” U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor this spring when he introduced legislation to strengthen oversight of dietary supplements.

Daniel Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, which represents the dietary supplements industry, questioned whether Ms. McClintock’s death was related to a supplement.

“It’s completely speculative. There’s a science to this. It’s not just what a coroner feels,” said Mr. Fabricant, who oversaw dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration during the Obama administration. “People unfortunately pass from dehydration every day, and there’s a lot of different reasons and a lot of different causes.”

Mr. Fabricant said it would have been ideal had the coroner or the family reported her death to the FDA so the agency could have launched an investigation.

Such reports are voluntary, and it’s not clear whether anyone reported her death to the agency. FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes said the agency does not discuss possible or ongoing investigations.

The FDA, Mr. Fabricant added, has a system in place to investigate deaths that might be linked to a supplement or drug. “It’s casework,” he said. “It’s good, old-fashioned police work that needs to be done.”

Tom McClintock has remained mostly silent about his wife’s death since he released a statement on Dec. 19, 2021, announcing it and gave a tribute to her at her Jan. 4 funeral. Until now, the cause of death had not been reported.

Mr. McClintock, contacted multiple times by phone and email Wednesday, was not immediately available for comment.

At his wife’s funeral, McClintock told mourners that she was fine when he spoke with her the day before he returned. She had told a friend that “she was on a roll” at a new job she loved in a Sacramento real estate office, he said, and “she was carefully dieting.”

“She just joined a gym,” he said. “At home, she was counting down the days to Christmas, wrapping all the gifts and making all the plans to make it the best family Christmas ever, and it would have been.”

According to the coroner’s report, however, the day before her death, “she had complaints of an upset stomach.”

Sacramento County spokesperson Kim Nava said via email Wednesday that the law prohibits the coroner’s office from discussing many details of specific cases. As part of any death investigation, the office “attempts to locate and review medical records and speak to family/witnesses to establish events leading up to and surrounding a death,” she said.

If any medications or supplements are found at the scene or if pertinent information is in the person’s medical records, those are passed along to the pathologist to help establish cause of death, Ms. Nava said.

“Any information the office obtains from medical records can’t be disseminated to a third party except by court order,” she said.

The leaves and fruit of the white mulberry tree, which is native to China, have been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Academic studies over the past decade have found that the extract from its leaves can lower blood sugar levels and help with weight loss. People take it in capsule or pill form, as an extract or powder. They can also brew the leaves as an herbal tea.

Lori McClintock’s reaction seems unusual. No deaths from the white mulberry plant have been reported to poison control officials in the past 10 years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Since 2012, 148 cases of white mulberry plant ingestion were voluntarily reported to poison control officials nationally, most involving accidental ingestion by children 12 and under, said Kaitlyn Brown, clinical managing director for the association. Only one case required medical follow-up, she said.

While poison control centers track exposures to the white mulberry plant, the FDA oversees dietary supplements, such as products that contain white mulberry leaf extract. Since 2004, two cases of people sickened by mulberry supplements have been reported to the FDA, according to its database that tracks “adverse events.” It relies heavily on voluntary reports from health care professionals and consumers. At least one of those cases led to hospitalization.

White mulberry leaf can have side effects, including nausea and diarrhea, according to research. Independent lab tests ordered by the coroner’s office showed Ms. McClintock’s body had elevated levels of nitrogen, sodium, and creatinine – all signs of dehydration, according to three pathologists who reviewed the coroner’s documents, which KHN redacted to remove Ms. McClintock’s name.

White mulberry leaves “do tend to cause dehydration, and part of the uses for that can be to help someone lose weight, mostly through fluid loss, which in this case was just kind of excessive,” said D’Michelle DuPre, MD, a retired forensic pathologist and a former medical examiner in South Carolina who reviewed the documents.

Dietary supplements, which include a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are regulated by the FDA. However, they are classified as food and don’t undergo the rigorous scientific and safety testing the government requires of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines.

Lawmakers aren’t proposing to put supplements into the same category as pharmaceuticals, but some say they are alarmed that neither the FDA nor the industry knows how many dietary supplements are out there – making it almost impossible for the government to oversee them and punish bad actors.

The FDA estimates 40,000 to 80,000 supplement products are on the market in the United States, and industry surveys estimate 80% of Americans use them.

Legislation by Sen. Durbin and U.S. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) would require manufacturers to register with the FDA and provide a public list of ingredients in their products, two provisions that are backed by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, another industry group that represents supplement makers.

But the council is lobbying against a provision that would require supplement makers to provide consumers with the ingredient amounts – or the blend – in their products, something they say is akin to giving a recipe to competitors. That’s proprietary information only government regulators should have access to, said Megan Olsen, the group’s senior vice president and general counsel.

Ms. Olsen explained that supplement manufacturers are regulated just like other food companies and are subject to strict labeling requirements and inspections by the FDA. They also must inform the agency about any adverse effects reported by consumers or doctors.

“Companies are testing products throughout the process, are reviewing how they’re being manufactured and what’s going into them,” Ms. Olsen said. “All of that is overseen and dictated by FDA regulation.”

The dietary supplement provisions were rolled into a larger Senate health committee bill that reauthorizes FDA programs, and senators are currently in negotiations with the House of Representatives. The Natural Products Association opposes all of the dietary supplement provisions.

Because dietary pills, teas, and other supplements are regulated as food products, manufacturers can’t advertise them as treatments or cures for health issues. But they can make claims about how the supplements affect the body. So someone who wants to lose weight or get their diabetes under control might reach for a bottle of white mulberry leaf extract because some supplement makers advertise it as a natural remedy that can lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.

Those kinds of claims are appealing to Americans and have been especially potent during the pandemic, as people sought to boost their immune systems and fend off COVID-19, said Debbie Petitpain, a registered dietitian nutritionist and a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

But dietary supplements can be dangerous and don’t affect everyone the same way. Mixing supplements and prescription medicines can compound the problem, according to the FDA.

“I think a lot of people are thinking, ‘Oh, it’s a plant.’ Or, ‘Oh, it’s just a vitamin. Certainly, that means that it’s not going to hurt me,’ ” Ms. Petitpain said. “But there’s always a risk for taking anything.”

It’s not clear why Lori McClintock was taking white mulberry leaf. Friends and family who gathered for her funeral described a vibrant, happy woman who loved her family and her work and already had wrapped Christmas presents under the tree in mid-December. She was planning to buy a recreational vehicle with her husband in retirement.

“We grieve the loss because of all the things she was looking forward to doing and all the years yet ahead,” Tom McClintock told mourners. “And we grieve for something else, because we’ve all lost a genuinely good person in our lives.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The wife of a Northern California congressman died late in 2021 after ingesting a plant that is generally considered safe and is used as an herbal remedy for a variety of ailments, including diabetes, obesity, and high cholesterol.

Lori McClintock, the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, died from dehydration due to gastroenteritis – an inflammation of the stomach and intestines – that was caused by “adverse effects of white mulberry leaf ingestion,” according to a report from the Sacramento County coroner that is dated March 10 but was not immediately released to the public. KHN obtained that report – in addition to the autopsy report and an amended death certificate containing an updated cause of death – in July.

The coroner’s office ruled her death an accident. The original death certificate, dated Dec. 20, 2021, listed the cause of death as “pending.”

Tom McClintock, a Republican who represents a district that spans multiple counties in northern and central California, found his 61-year-old wife unresponsive at their Elk Grove, Calif., home on Dec. 15, 2021, according to the coroner’s report. He had just returned from Washington after voting in Congress the night before.

It’s unclear from the autopsy report whether Lori McClintock took a dietary supplement containing white mulberry leaf, ate fresh or dried leaves, or drank them in a tea, but a “partially intact” white mulberry leaf was found in her stomach, according to the report.

Ms. McClintock’s death underscores the risks of the vast, booming market of dietary supplements and herbal remedies, which have grown into a $54 billion industry in the United States – one that both lawmakers and health care experts say needs more government scrutiny.

“Many people assume if that product is sold in the United States of America, somebody has inspected it, and it must be safe. Unfortunately, that’s not always true,” U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said on the Senate floor this spring when he introduced legislation to strengthen oversight of dietary supplements.

Daniel Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, which represents the dietary supplements industry, questioned whether Ms. McClintock’s death was related to a supplement.

“It’s completely speculative. There’s a science to this. It’s not just what a coroner feels,” said Mr. Fabricant, who oversaw dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration during the Obama administration. “People unfortunately pass from dehydration every day, and there’s a lot of different reasons and a lot of different causes.”

Mr. Fabricant said it would have been ideal had the coroner or the family reported her death to the FDA so the agency could have launched an investigation.

Such reports are voluntary, and it’s not clear whether anyone reported her death to the agency. FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes said the agency does not discuss possible or ongoing investigations.

The FDA, Mr. Fabricant added, has a system in place to investigate deaths that might be linked to a supplement or drug. “It’s casework,” he said. “It’s good, old-fashioned police work that needs to be done.”

Tom McClintock has remained mostly silent about his wife’s death since he released a statement on Dec. 19, 2021, announcing it and gave a tribute to her at her Jan. 4 funeral. Until now, the cause of death had not been reported.

Mr. McClintock, contacted multiple times by phone and email Wednesday, was not immediately available for comment.

At his wife’s funeral, McClintock told mourners that she was fine when he spoke with her the day before he returned. She had told a friend that “she was on a roll” at a new job she loved in a Sacramento real estate office, he said, and “she was carefully dieting.”

“She just joined a gym,” he said. “At home, she was counting down the days to Christmas, wrapping all the gifts and making all the plans to make it the best family Christmas ever, and it would have been.”

According to the coroner’s report, however, the day before her death, “she had complaints of an upset stomach.”

Sacramento County spokesperson Kim Nava said via email Wednesday that the law prohibits the coroner’s office from discussing many details of specific cases. As part of any death investigation, the office “attempts to locate and review medical records and speak to family/witnesses to establish events leading up to and surrounding a death,” she said.

If any medications or supplements are found at the scene or if pertinent information is in the person’s medical records, those are passed along to the pathologist to help establish cause of death, Ms. Nava said.

“Any information the office obtains from medical records can’t be disseminated to a third party except by court order,” she said.

The leaves and fruit of the white mulberry tree, which is native to China, have been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Academic studies over the past decade have found that the extract from its leaves can lower blood sugar levels and help with weight loss. People take it in capsule or pill form, as an extract or powder. They can also brew the leaves as an herbal tea.

Lori McClintock’s reaction seems unusual. No deaths from the white mulberry plant have been reported to poison control officials in the past 10 years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Since 2012, 148 cases of white mulberry plant ingestion were voluntarily reported to poison control officials nationally, most involving accidental ingestion by children 12 and under, said Kaitlyn Brown, clinical managing director for the association. Only one case required medical follow-up, she said.

While poison control centers track exposures to the white mulberry plant, the FDA oversees dietary supplements, such as products that contain white mulberry leaf extract. Since 2004, two cases of people sickened by mulberry supplements have been reported to the FDA, according to its database that tracks “adverse events.” It relies heavily on voluntary reports from health care professionals and consumers. At least one of those cases led to hospitalization.

White mulberry leaf can have side effects, including nausea and diarrhea, according to research. Independent lab tests ordered by the coroner’s office showed Ms. McClintock’s body had elevated levels of nitrogen, sodium, and creatinine – all signs of dehydration, according to three pathologists who reviewed the coroner’s documents, which KHN redacted to remove Ms. McClintock’s name.

White mulberry leaves “do tend to cause dehydration, and part of the uses for that can be to help someone lose weight, mostly through fluid loss, which in this case was just kind of excessive,” said D’Michelle DuPre, MD, a retired forensic pathologist and a former medical examiner in South Carolina who reviewed the documents.

Dietary supplements, which include a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are regulated by the FDA. However, they are classified as food and don’t undergo the rigorous scientific and safety testing the government requires of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines.

Lawmakers aren’t proposing to put supplements into the same category as pharmaceuticals, but some say they are alarmed that neither the FDA nor the industry knows how many dietary supplements are out there – making it almost impossible for the government to oversee them and punish bad actors.

The FDA estimates 40,000 to 80,000 supplement products are on the market in the United States, and industry surveys estimate 80% of Americans use them.

Legislation by Sen. Durbin and U.S. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) would require manufacturers to register with the FDA and provide a public list of ingredients in their products, two provisions that are backed by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, another industry group that represents supplement makers.

But the council is lobbying against a provision that would require supplement makers to provide consumers with the ingredient amounts – or the blend – in their products, something they say is akin to giving a recipe to competitors. That’s proprietary information only government regulators should have access to, said Megan Olsen, the group’s senior vice president and general counsel.

Ms. Olsen explained that supplement manufacturers are regulated just like other food companies and are subject to strict labeling requirements and inspections by the FDA. They also must inform the agency about any adverse effects reported by consumers or doctors.

“Companies are testing products throughout the process, are reviewing how they’re being manufactured and what’s going into them,” Ms. Olsen said. “All of that is overseen and dictated by FDA regulation.”

The dietary supplement provisions were rolled into a larger Senate health committee bill that reauthorizes FDA programs, and senators are currently in negotiations with the House of Representatives. The Natural Products Association opposes all of the dietary supplement provisions.

Because dietary pills, teas, and other supplements are regulated as food products, manufacturers can’t advertise them as treatments or cures for health issues. But they can make claims about how the supplements affect the body. So someone who wants to lose weight or get their diabetes under control might reach for a bottle of white mulberry leaf extract because some supplement makers advertise it as a natural remedy that can lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.

Those kinds of claims are appealing to Americans and have been especially potent during the pandemic, as people sought to boost their immune systems and fend off COVID-19, said Debbie Petitpain, a registered dietitian nutritionist and a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

But dietary supplements can be dangerous and don’t affect everyone the same way. Mixing supplements and prescription medicines can compound the problem, according to the FDA.

“I think a lot of people are thinking, ‘Oh, it’s a plant.’ Or, ‘Oh, it’s just a vitamin. Certainly, that means that it’s not going to hurt me,’ ” Ms. Petitpain said. “But there’s always a risk for taking anything.”

It’s not clear why Lori McClintock was taking white mulberry leaf. Friends and family who gathered for her funeral described a vibrant, happy woman who loved her family and her work and already had wrapped Christmas presents under the tree in mid-December. She was planning to buy a recreational vehicle with her husband in retirement.

“We grieve the loss because of all the things she was looking forward to doing and all the years yet ahead,” Tom McClintock told mourners. “And we grieve for something else, because we’ve all lost a genuinely good person in our lives.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.