Cardiology News

When Jaime Seltzer first heard about a new virus that was spreading globally early in 2020, she was on full alert. As an advocate for the post-viral condition known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), she worried about a new wave of people having long-term disabilities.

“The hair on my arms stood on end,” said Ms. Seltzer, director of scientific and medical outreach at the advocacy group MEAction and a consultant researcher at Stanford University.

If the percentage of people with COVID-19 who go on to have long-term symptoms “similar to what has been seen for other pathogens, then we’re looking at a mass disabling event,” Ms. Seltzer, who has had ME/CFS herself, said she wondered.

Sure enough, later in 2020, reports began emerging about people with extreme fatigue, postexertion crashes, brain fog, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness when standing up months after a bout with the then-new viral illness. Those same symptoms had been designated as “core criteria” of ME/CFS by the National Academy of Medicine in a 2015 report.

Now, advocates like Ms. Seltzer are hoping the research and medical communities will give ME/CFS and other postviral illnesses the same attention they have increasingly focused on long COVID.

The emergence of long COVID was no surprise to researchers who study ME/CFS, because the same set of symptoms has arisen after many other viruses.

“This for all the world looks like ME/CFS. We think they are frighteningly similar, if not identical,” said David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who studies people with both diagnoses.

The actual numbers are hard to determine, since many people who meet ME/CFS criteria aren’t formally diagnosed. But a combined analysis of data from several studies published in March found that about one in three people had fatigue and about one in five reported having a hard time with thinking and memory 12 or more weeks after they had COVID-19.

According to some estimates, about half of people with long COVID will meet the criteria for ME/CFS, whether they’re given that specific diagnosis or not.

Other conditions that often exist with ME/CFS are also being seen in people with long COVID, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, which causes people to feel dizzy when they stand, along with other symptoms; other problems with the autonomic nervous system, which controls body systems such as heart rate, blood pressure, and digestion, known together as dysautonomia; and a condition related to allergies called mast cell activation disorder.

Post–acute infection syndromes have been linked to a long list of viruses, including Ebola, the 2003-2004 SARS virus, and Epstein-Barr – the virus most commonly associated with ME/CFS.

The problem in clinical medicine is that once an infection has cleared, the teaching has been that the person should no longer feel sick, said Nancy G. Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Miami. “I was taught that there has to be an antigen [such as a viral protein] in the system to drive the immune system to make it create sickness, and the immune system should shut off when it’s done,” she said.

Thus, if virus is gone and other routine lab tests come up negative, doctors often deem the person’s reported symptoms to be psychological, which can upset patients, Anthony Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in July 2021.

Only recently have doctors started to appreciate the idea that the immune system may be overreacting long term, Dr. Klimas said.

Now, long COVID appears to be speeding up that recognition. Dr. Systrom said he has “absolutely” seen a change in attitude among fellow doctors who had been skeptical of ME/CFS as a “real” illness because there’s no test for it.

“I’m very keenly aware of a large group of health care professionals who really had not bought into the concept of ME/CFS as a real disease who have had an epiphany of sorts with long COVID and now, in a backwards way, have applied that same thinking to their very same patients with ME/CFS,” he said.
 

Science showing ‘frighteningly similar’ symptoms

Dr. Systrom has spent several years researching how ME/CFS patients cannot tolerate exercise and now is doing similar studies in people with long COVID. “Several months into the pandemic, we began receiving reports of patients who had survived COVID and maybe even had a relatively mild disease ... and as the summer of 2020 moved into the fall, it became apparent that there was a subset of patients who for all the world appeared to meet ME/CFS clinical criteria,” he said.

Using bicycle exercise tests on long COVID patients with catheters placed in their veins, Dr. Systrom and associates have shown a lack of exercise capacity that isn’t caused by heart or lung disease but instead is related to abnormal nerves and blood vessels, just as they’d shown previously in ME/CFS patient.

Avindra Nath, MD, senior investigator and clinical director of intramural research at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Md., was doing a deep-dive scientific study on ME/CFS when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, he›s begun another study using the same protocol and sophisticated laboratory measurement to evaluate people with long COVID.

“As terrible as [long COVID] is, it’s kind of a blessing in disguise for ME/CFS because there’s just so much overlap between the two and they could very well be in many ways one in the same thing. The problem with studying ME/CFS is oftentimes you didn’t know what the trigger was. You see patients many years later, then try to backtrack and find out what happened,” said Dr. Nath, a neuroimmunologist.

With long COVID, on the other hand, “we know when they got infected and when their symptoms actually started, so it becomes much more uniform. ... It gives us an opportunity to maybe solve certain things in a much more well-defined population and try to find answers.”

Advocacy groups want to see more.

In February 2021, Solve M.E. launched the Long COVID Alliance, made up of several organizations, companies, and people with a goal to influence policy and speed up research into a range of postviral illnesses.

Solve M.E. has also pushed for inclusion of language regarding ME/CFS and related conditions into congressional bills addressing long COVID, including those that call for funding of research and clinical care.

“On the political front, we’ve really capitalized on a moment in time in which we have the spotlight,” said Emily Taylor, vice president of advocacy and engagement for Solve M.E.

“One of the hardest parts about ME/CFS is how to show that it’s real when it’s invisible. Most people agree that COVID is real and therefore if somebody gets ME/CFS after COVID, it’s real,” she said.

The advocacy groups are now pushing for non-COVID postinfection illnesses to be included in efforts aimed at helping people with long COVID, with mixed results. For example, the RECOVER Initiative, established in February 2021 with $1.5 billion in funding from Congress to the National Institutes of Health, is specifically for studying long COVID and does not fund research into other postinfection illnesses, although representatives from the ME/CFS community are advisers.

Language addressing ME/CFS and other postinfectious chronic illnesses has been included in several long COVID bills now pending in Congress, including the Care for Long COVID Act in the Senate and its companion COVID-19 Long Haulers Act in the House. “Our goal is to push for passage of a long COVID bill by the end of the year,” Ms. Taylor said.

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

When Jaime Seltzer first heard about a new virus that was spreading globally early in 2020, she was on full alert. As an advocate for the post-viral condition known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), she worried about a new wave of people having long-term disabilities.

“The hair on my arms stood on end,” said Ms. Seltzer, director of scientific and medical outreach at the advocacy group MEAction and a consultant researcher at Stanford University.

If the percentage of people with COVID-19 who go on to have long-term symptoms “similar to what has been seen for other pathogens, then we’re looking at a mass disabling event,” Ms. Seltzer, who has had ME/CFS herself, said she wondered.

Sure enough, later in 2020, reports began emerging about people with extreme fatigue, postexertion crashes, brain fog, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness when standing up months after a bout with the then-new viral illness. Those same symptoms had been designated as “core criteria” of ME/CFS by the National Academy of Medicine in a 2015 report.

Now, advocates like Ms. Seltzer are hoping the research and medical communities will give ME/CFS and other postviral illnesses the same attention they have increasingly focused on long COVID.

The emergence of long COVID was no surprise to researchers who study ME/CFS, because the same set of symptoms has arisen after many other viruses.

“This for all the world looks like ME/CFS. We think they are frighteningly similar, if not identical,” said David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who studies people with both diagnoses.

The actual numbers are hard to determine, since many people who meet ME/CFS criteria aren’t formally diagnosed. But a combined analysis of data from several studies published in March found that about one in three people had fatigue and about one in five reported having a hard time with thinking and memory 12 or more weeks after they had COVID-19.

According to some estimates, about half of people with long COVID will meet the criteria for ME/CFS, whether they’re given that specific diagnosis or not.

Other conditions that often exist with ME/CFS are also being seen in people with long COVID, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, which causes people to feel dizzy when they stand, along with other symptoms; other problems with the autonomic nervous system, which controls body systems such as heart rate, blood pressure, and digestion, known together as dysautonomia; and a condition related to allergies called mast cell activation disorder.

Post–acute infection syndromes have been linked to a long list of viruses, including Ebola, the 2003-2004 SARS virus, and Epstein-Barr – the virus most commonly associated with ME/CFS.

The problem in clinical medicine is that once an infection has cleared, the teaching has been that the person should no longer feel sick, said Nancy G. Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Miami. “I was taught that there has to be an antigen [such as a viral protein] in the system to drive the immune system to make it create sickness, and the immune system should shut off when it’s done,” she said.

Thus, if virus is gone and other routine lab tests come up negative, doctors often deem the person’s reported symptoms to be psychological, which can upset patients, Anthony Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in July 2021.

Only recently have doctors started to appreciate the idea that the immune system may be overreacting long term, Dr. Klimas said.

Now, long COVID appears to be speeding up that recognition. Dr. Systrom said he has “absolutely” seen a change in attitude among fellow doctors who had been skeptical of ME/CFS as a “real” illness because there’s no test for it.

“I’m very keenly aware of a large group of health care professionals who really had not bought into the concept of ME/CFS as a real disease who have had an epiphany of sorts with long COVID and now, in a backwards way, have applied that same thinking to their very same patients with ME/CFS,” he said.
 

Science showing ‘frighteningly similar’ symptoms

Dr. Systrom has spent several years researching how ME/CFS patients cannot tolerate exercise and now is doing similar studies in people with long COVID. “Several months into the pandemic, we began receiving reports of patients who had survived COVID and maybe even had a relatively mild disease ... and as the summer of 2020 moved into the fall, it became apparent that there was a subset of patients who for all the world appeared to meet ME/CFS clinical criteria,” he said.

Using bicycle exercise tests on long COVID patients with catheters placed in their veins, Dr. Systrom and associates have shown a lack of exercise capacity that isn’t caused by heart or lung disease but instead is related to abnormal nerves and blood vessels, just as they’d shown previously in ME/CFS patient.

Avindra Nath, MD, senior investigator and clinical director of intramural research at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Md., was doing a deep-dive scientific study on ME/CFS when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, he›s begun another study using the same protocol and sophisticated laboratory measurement to evaluate people with long COVID.

“As terrible as [long COVID] is, it’s kind of a blessing in disguise for ME/CFS because there’s just so much overlap between the two and they could very well be in many ways one in the same thing. The problem with studying ME/CFS is oftentimes you didn’t know what the trigger was. You see patients many years later, then try to backtrack and find out what happened,” said Dr. Nath, a neuroimmunologist.

With long COVID, on the other hand, “we know when they got infected and when their symptoms actually started, so it becomes much more uniform. ... It gives us an opportunity to maybe solve certain things in a much more well-defined population and try to find answers.”

Advocacy groups want to see more.

In February 2021, Solve M.E. launched the Long COVID Alliance, made up of several organizations, companies, and people with a goal to influence policy and speed up research into a range of postviral illnesses.

Solve M.E. has also pushed for inclusion of language regarding ME/CFS and related conditions into congressional bills addressing long COVID, including those that call for funding of research and clinical care.

“On the political front, we’ve really capitalized on a moment in time in which we have the spotlight,” said Emily Taylor, vice president of advocacy and engagement for Solve M.E.

“One of the hardest parts about ME/CFS is how to show that it’s real when it’s invisible. Most people agree that COVID is real and therefore if somebody gets ME/CFS after COVID, it’s real,” she said.

The advocacy groups are now pushing for non-COVID postinfection illnesses to be included in efforts aimed at helping people with long COVID, with mixed results. For example, the RECOVER Initiative, established in February 2021 with $1.5 billion in funding from Congress to the National Institutes of Health, is specifically for studying long COVID and does not fund research into other postinfection illnesses, although representatives from the ME/CFS community are advisers.

Language addressing ME/CFS and other postinfectious chronic illnesses has been included in several long COVID bills now pending in Congress, including the Care for Long COVID Act in the Senate and its companion COVID-19 Long Haulers Act in the House. “Our goal is to push for passage of a long COVID bill by the end of the year,” Ms. Taylor said.

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

When Jaime Seltzer first heard about a new virus that was spreading globally early in 2020, she was on full alert. As an advocate for the post-viral condition known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), she worried about a new wave of people having long-term disabilities.

“The hair on my arms stood on end,” said Ms. Seltzer, director of scientific and medical outreach at the advocacy group MEAction and a consultant researcher at Stanford University.

If the percentage of people with COVID-19 who go on to have long-term symptoms “similar to what has been seen for other pathogens, then we’re looking at a mass disabling event,” Ms. Seltzer, who has had ME/CFS herself, said she wondered.

Sure enough, later in 2020, reports began emerging about people with extreme fatigue, postexertion crashes, brain fog, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness when standing up months after a bout with the then-new viral illness. Those same symptoms had been designated as “core criteria” of ME/CFS by the National Academy of Medicine in a 2015 report.

Now, advocates like Ms. Seltzer are hoping the research and medical communities will give ME/CFS and other postviral illnesses the same attention they have increasingly focused on long COVID.

The emergence of long COVID was no surprise to researchers who study ME/CFS, because the same set of symptoms has arisen after many other viruses.

“This for all the world looks like ME/CFS. We think they are frighteningly similar, if not identical,” said David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who studies people with both diagnoses.

The actual numbers are hard to determine, since many people who meet ME/CFS criteria aren’t formally diagnosed. But a combined analysis of data from several studies published in March found that about one in three people had fatigue and about one in five reported having a hard time with thinking and memory 12 or more weeks after they had COVID-19.

According to some estimates, about half of people with long COVID will meet the criteria for ME/CFS, whether they’re given that specific diagnosis or not.

Other conditions that often exist with ME/CFS are also being seen in people with long COVID, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, which causes people to feel dizzy when they stand, along with other symptoms; other problems with the autonomic nervous system, which controls body systems such as heart rate, blood pressure, and digestion, known together as dysautonomia; and a condition related to allergies called mast cell activation disorder.

Post–acute infection syndromes have been linked to a long list of viruses, including Ebola, the 2003-2004 SARS virus, and Epstein-Barr – the virus most commonly associated with ME/CFS.

The problem in clinical medicine is that once an infection has cleared, the teaching has been that the person should no longer feel sick, said Nancy G. Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Miami. “I was taught that there has to be an antigen [such as a viral protein] in the system to drive the immune system to make it create sickness, and the immune system should shut off when it’s done,” she said.

Thus, if virus is gone and other routine lab tests come up negative, doctors often deem the person’s reported symptoms to be psychological, which can upset patients, Anthony Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in July 2021.

Only recently have doctors started to appreciate the idea that the immune system may be overreacting long term, Dr. Klimas said.

Now, long COVID appears to be speeding up that recognition. Dr. Systrom said he has “absolutely” seen a change in attitude among fellow doctors who had been skeptical of ME/CFS as a “real” illness because there’s no test for it.

“I’m very keenly aware of a large group of health care professionals who really had not bought into the concept of ME/CFS as a real disease who have had an epiphany of sorts with long COVID and now, in a backwards way, have applied that same thinking to their very same patients with ME/CFS,” he said.
 

Science showing ‘frighteningly similar’ symptoms

Dr. Systrom has spent several years researching how ME/CFS patients cannot tolerate exercise and now is doing similar studies in people with long COVID. “Several months into the pandemic, we began receiving reports of patients who had survived COVID and maybe even had a relatively mild disease ... and as the summer of 2020 moved into the fall, it became apparent that there was a subset of patients who for all the world appeared to meet ME/CFS clinical criteria,” he said.

Using bicycle exercise tests on long COVID patients with catheters placed in their veins, Dr. Systrom and associates have shown a lack of exercise capacity that isn’t caused by heart or lung disease but instead is related to abnormal nerves and blood vessels, just as they’d shown previously in ME/CFS patient.

Avindra Nath, MD, senior investigator and clinical director of intramural research at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Md., was doing a deep-dive scientific study on ME/CFS when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, he›s begun another study using the same protocol and sophisticated laboratory measurement to evaluate people with long COVID.

“As terrible as [long COVID] is, it’s kind of a blessing in disguise for ME/CFS because there’s just so much overlap between the two and they could very well be in many ways one in the same thing. The problem with studying ME/CFS is oftentimes you didn’t know what the trigger was. You see patients many years later, then try to backtrack and find out what happened,” said Dr. Nath, a neuroimmunologist.

With long COVID, on the other hand, “we know when they got infected and when their symptoms actually started, so it becomes much more uniform. ... It gives us an opportunity to maybe solve certain things in a much more well-defined population and try to find answers.”

Advocacy groups want to see more.

In February 2021, Solve M.E. launched the Long COVID Alliance, made up of several organizations, companies, and people with a goal to influence policy and speed up research into a range of postviral illnesses.

Solve M.E. has also pushed for inclusion of language regarding ME/CFS and related conditions into congressional bills addressing long COVID, including those that call for funding of research and clinical care.

“On the political front, we’ve really capitalized on a moment in time in which we have the spotlight,” said Emily Taylor, vice president of advocacy and engagement for Solve M.E.

“One of the hardest parts about ME/CFS is how to show that it’s real when it’s invisible. Most people agree that COVID is real and therefore if somebody gets ME/CFS after COVID, it’s real,” she said.

The advocacy groups are now pushing for non-COVID postinfection illnesses to be included in efforts aimed at helping people with long COVID, with mixed results. For example, the RECOVER Initiative, established in February 2021 with $1.5 billion in funding from Congress to the National Institutes of Health, is specifically for studying long COVID and does not fund research into other postinfection illnesses, although representatives from the ME/CFS community are advisers.

Language addressing ME/CFS and other postinfectious chronic illnesses has been included in several long COVID bills now pending in Congress, including the Care for Long COVID Act in the Senate and its companion COVID-19 Long Haulers Act in the House. “Our goal is to push for passage of a long COVID bill by the end of the year,” Ms. Taylor said.

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

SEOUL, South Korea – Menopause before age 40 is associated with elevated risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, according to a study published in European Heart Journal, from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The study of more than 1.4 million women revealed that the younger the age at menopause, the higher the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

“Women with premature menopause should be aware that they may be more likely to develop heart failure or atrial fibrillation than their peers,” said study author Ga Eun Nam, MD, PhD, of Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. “This may be good motivation to improve lifestyle habits known to be linked with heart disease, such as quitting smoking and exercising.”

Cardiovascular disease typically occurs up to 10 years later in women than men. Premenopausal women are thought to benefit from estrogen’s protective effect on the cardiovascular system. The cessation of menstruation and subsequent decline of estrogen levels may make women more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.
 

A national population

Premature menopause affects 1% of women younger than 40 years, the ESC press release stated. Prior studies have found a link between premature (before age 40 years) and early (before age 45 years) menopause and cardiovascular disease overall, but the evidence for heart failure or atrial fibrillation alone is limited. This study examined the associations between premature menopause, age at menopause, and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS), which provides health screening at least every 2 years and includes 97% of the population.

The study included 1,401,175 postmenopausal women aged 30 years and older who completed the NHIS health checkup in 2009. Participants were monitored until the end of 2018 for new-onset heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Information was collected on demographics, health behaviors, and reproductive factors, including age at menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Age at menopause was split into four categories: younger than 40 years, 40-44 years, 45-49 years, and 50 years or older. Premature menopause was defined as having the final menstrual period before age 40 years.

Some 28,111 (2%) participants had a history of premature menopause. For these women, the average age at menopause was 36.7 years. The average age at study enrollment for women with and for those without a history of premature menopause was 60 and 61.5 years, respectively. During an average follow-up of 9.1 years, 42,699 (3.0%) developed heart failure, and 44,834 (3.2%) developed atrial fibrillation.

The researchers analyzed the association between history of premature menopause and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, income, body mass index, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, HRT, and age at menarche. Women who experienced premature menopause had a 33% higher risk for heart failure and 9% higher risk for atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not.
 

Reproductive history

The researchers then analyzed the associations between age at menopause and incidence of heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for the same factors as in the previous analyses. The risk for incident heart failure increased as the age at menopause decreased. Compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause, those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause had 11%, 23%, and 39% greater risk for incident heart failure, respectively. Similarly, the risk for incident atrial fibrillation increased as the age at menopause decreased; the risk was 4%, 10%, and 11% higher for those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause, respectively, compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause.

The authors said that several factors may explain the associations between menopausal age, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, such as the drop in estrogen levels and changes in body fat distribution.

Dr. Nam concluded, “The misconception that heart disease primarily affects men has meant that sex-specific risk factors have been largely ignored. Evidence is growing that undergoing menopause before the age of 40 years may increase the likelihood of heart disease later in life. Our study indicates that reproductive history should be routinely considered in addition to traditional risk factors such as smoking when evaluating the future likelihood of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

SEOUL, South Korea – Menopause before age 40 is associated with elevated risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, according to a study published in European Heart Journal, from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The study of more than 1.4 million women revealed that the younger the age at menopause, the higher the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

“Women with premature menopause should be aware that they may be more likely to develop heart failure or atrial fibrillation than their peers,” said study author Ga Eun Nam, MD, PhD, of Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. “This may be good motivation to improve lifestyle habits known to be linked with heart disease, such as quitting smoking and exercising.”

Cardiovascular disease typically occurs up to 10 years later in women than men. Premenopausal women are thought to benefit from estrogen’s protective effect on the cardiovascular system. The cessation of menstruation and subsequent decline of estrogen levels may make women more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.
 

A national population

Premature menopause affects 1% of women younger than 40 years, the ESC press release stated. Prior studies have found a link between premature (before age 40 years) and early (before age 45 years) menopause and cardiovascular disease overall, but the evidence for heart failure or atrial fibrillation alone is limited. This study examined the associations between premature menopause, age at menopause, and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS), which provides health screening at least every 2 years and includes 97% of the population.

The study included 1,401,175 postmenopausal women aged 30 years and older who completed the NHIS health checkup in 2009. Participants were monitored until the end of 2018 for new-onset heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Information was collected on demographics, health behaviors, and reproductive factors, including age at menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Age at menopause was split into four categories: younger than 40 years, 40-44 years, 45-49 years, and 50 years or older. Premature menopause was defined as having the final menstrual period before age 40 years.

Some 28,111 (2%) participants had a history of premature menopause. For these women, the average age at menopause was 36.7 years. The average age at study enrollment for women with and for those without a history of premature menopause was 60 and 61.5 years, respectively. During an average follow-up of 9.1 years, 42,699 (3.0%) developed heart failure, and 44,834 (3.2%) developed atrial fibrillation.

The researchers analyzed the association between history of premature menopause and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, income, body mass index, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, HRT, and age at menarche. Women who experienced premature menopause had a 33% higher risk for heart failure and 9% higher risk for atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not.
 

Reproductive history

The researchers then analyzed the associations between age at menopause and incidence of heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for the same factors as in the previous analyses. The risk for incident heart failure increased as the age at menopause decreased. Compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause, those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause had 11%, 23%, and 39% greater risk for incident heart failure, respectively. Similarly, the risk for incident atrial fibrillation increased as the age at menopause decreased; the risk was 4%, 10%, and 11% higher for those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause, respectively, compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause.

The authors said that several factors may explain the associations between menopausal age, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, such as the drop in estrogen levels and changes in body fat distribution.

Dr. Nam concluded, “The misconception that heart disease primarily affects men has meant that sex-specific risk factors have been largely ignored. Evidence is growing that undergoing menopause before the age of 40 years may increase the likelihood of heart disease later in life. Our study indicates that reproductive history should be routinely considered in addition to traditional risk factors such as smoking when evaluating the future likelihood of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

SEOUL, South Korea – Menopause before age 40 is associated with elevated risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, according to a study published in European Heart Journal, from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The study of more than 1.4 million women revealed that the younger the age at menopause, the higher the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

“Women with premature menopause should be aware that they may be more likely to develop heart failure or atrial fibrillation than their peers,” said study author Ga Eun Nam, MD, PhD, of Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. “This may be good motivation to improve lifestyle habits known to be linked with heart disease, such as quitting smoking and exercising.”

Cardiovascular disease typically occurs up to 10 years later in women than men. Premenopausal women are thought to benefit from estrogen’s protective effect on the cardiovascular system. The cessation of menstruation and subsequent decline of estrogen levels may make women more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.
 

A national population

Premature menopause affects 1% of women younger than 40 years, the ESC press release stated. Prior studies have found a link between premature (before age 40 years) and early (before age 45 years) menopause and cardiovascular disease overall, but the evidence for heart failure or atrial fibrillation alone is limited. This study examined the associations between premature menopause, age at menopause, and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS), which provides health screening at least every 2 years and includes 97% of the population.

The study included 1,401,175 postmenopausal women aged 30 years and older who completed the NHIS health checkup in 2009. Participants were monitored until the end of 2018 for new-onset heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Information was collected on demographics, health behaviors, and reproductive factors, including age at menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Age at menopause was split into four categories: younger than 40 years, 40-44 years, 45-49 years, and 50 years or older. Premature menopause was defined as having the final menstrual period before age 40 years.

Some 28,111 (2%) participants had a history of premature menopause. For these women, the average age at menopause was 36.7 years. The average age at study enrollment for women with and for those without a history of premature menopause was 60 and 61.5 years, respectively. During an average follow-up of 9.1 years, 42,699 (3.0%) developed heart failure, and 44,834 (3.2%) developed atrial fibrillation.

The researchers analyzed the association between history of premature menopause and incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, income, body mass index, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, HRT, and age at menarche. Women who experienced premature menopause had a 33% higher risk for heart failure and 9% higher risk for atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not.
 

Reproductive history

The researchers then analyzed the associations between age at menopause and incidence of heart failure and atrial fibrillation after adjusting for the same factors as in the previous analyses. The risk for incident heart failure increased as the age at menopause decreased. Compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause, those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause had 11%, 23%, and 39% greater risk for incident heart failure, respectively. Similarly, the risk for incident atrial fibrillation increased as the age at menopause decreased; the risk was 4%, 10%, and 11% higher for those aged 45-49 years, 40-44 years, and younger than 40 years at menopause, respectively, compared with women aged 50 years and older at menopause.

The authors said that several factors may explain the associations between menopausal age, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, such as the drop in estrogen levels and changes in body fat distribution.

Dr. Nam concluded, “The misconception that heart disease primarily affects men has meant that sex-specific risk factors have been largely ignored. Evidence is growing that undergoing menopause before the age of 40 years may increase the likelihood of heart disease later in life. Our study indicates that reproductive history should be routinely considered in addition to traditional risk factors such as smoking when evaluating the future likelihood of heart failure and atrial fibrillation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system (Insulet Corp) for children aged 2 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the company announced on Aug. 22.

Omnipod 5 was originally cleared for use in individuals age 6 and older in Jan. 2022, as previously reported by this news organization. It is the third semi-automated closed-loop system approved in the United States but the first that is tubing-free. It integrates with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor system and a compatible smartphone to automatically adjust insulin and protect against high and low glucose levels.

“We received tremendous first-hand reports of how Omnipod 5 made diabetes management easier for our pivotal trial participants, and the clinical data demonstrated impressive glycemic improvements as well,” Trang Ly, MBBS, PhD, senior vice president and medical director at Insulet, said in a news release. “This expanded indication for younger children gives us great pride, knowing we can further ease the burden of glucose management for these children and their caregivers with our simple to use, elegant, automated insulin delivery system.”

In a recent clinical trial in very young children (age 2-5.9 years) with type 1 diabetes, Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, and colleagues found that the Omnipod 5 lowered A1c by 0.55 percentage points and reduced time in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) by 0.27%. According to their findings, published in Diabetes Care, time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased by 11%, or by 2.6 hours more per day, in children in the study.

According to the release, the Omnipod 5 can now be prescribed to patients with insurance coverage. Patients can access their prescription through the pharmacy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system (Insulet Corp) for children aged 2 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the company announced on Aug. 22.

Omnipod 5 was originally cleared for use in individuals age 6 and older in Jan. 2022, as previously reported by this news organization. It is the third semi-automated closed-loop system approved in the United States but the first that is tubing-free. It integrates with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor system and a compatible smartphone to automatically adjust insulin and protect against high and low glucose levels.

“We received tremendous first-hand reports of how Omnipod 5 made diabetes management easier for our pivotal trial participants, and the clinical data demonstrated impressive glycemic improvements as well,” Trang Ly, MBBS, PhD, senior vice president and medical director at Insulet, said in a news release. “This expanded indication for younger children gives us great pride, knowing we can further ease the burden of glucose management for these children and their caregivers with our simple to use, elegant, automated insulin delivery system.”

In a recent clinical trial in very young children (age 2-5.9 years) with type 1 diabetes, Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, and colleagues found that the Omnipod 5 lowered A1c by 0.55 percentage points and reduced time in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) by 0.27%. According to their findings, published in Diabetes Care, time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased by 11%, or by 2.6 hours more per day, in children in the study.

According to the release, the Omnipod 5 can now be prescribed to patients with insurance coverage. Patients can access their prescription through the pharmacy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system (Insulet Corp) for children aged 2 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the company announced on Aug. 22.

Omnipod 5 was originally cleared for use in individuals age 6 and older in Jan. 2022, as previously reported by this news organization. It is the third semi-automated closed-loop system approved in the United States but the first that is tubing-free. It integrates with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor system and a compatible smartphone to automatically adjust insulin and protect against high and low glucose levels.

“We received tremendous first-hand reports of how Omnipod 5 made diabetes management easier for our pivotal trial participants, and the clinical data demonstrated impressive glycemic improvements as well,” Trang Ly, MBBS, PhD, senior vice president and medical director at Insulet, said in a news release. “This expanded indication for younger children gives us great pride, knowing we can further ease the burden of glucose management for these children and their caregivers with our simple to use, elegant, automated insulin delivery system.”

In a recent clinical trial in very young children (age 2-5.9 years) with type 1 diabetes, Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, and colleagues found that the Omnipod 5 lowered A1c by 0.55 percentage points and reduced time in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) by 0.27%. According to their findings, published in Diabetes Care, time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased by 11%, or by 2.6 hours more per day, in children in the study.

According to the release, the Omnipod 5 can now be prescribed to patients with insurance coverage. Patients can access their prescription through the pharmacy.

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

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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