User login
Cardiology News is an independent news source that provides cardiologists with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and the impact of health care policy on cardiology and the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is the online destination and multimedia properties of Cardiology News, the independent news publication for cardiologists. Cardiology news is the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in cardiology as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is owned by Frontline Medical Communications.
AFib link with titin mutations warrants selected genetic testing
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Testing to identify mutations in the gene that codes for the muscle protein titin is now a reasonable step in routine clinical practice for selected people with either early-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib) or a family history of atrial fibrillation, or other cardiac disorders that have been strongly linked with titin-gene mutations, Patrick T. Ellinor, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium.
About one out of every 250 people carries a loss of function (LOF) mutation in one of their TTN genes that codes for the titin protein, making these mutations about as common as mutations for familial hypercholesterolemia, noted Dr. Ellinor, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and director of the Cardiovascular Disease Initiative at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. TTN LOF mutations are “bad and very frequent,” he said in an interview. “This is evolving quickly as we start to appreciate how frequent these mutations are.”
Several commercial genetic testing companies now offer testing of blood specimens for TTN LOF mutations, often as part of an “arrhythmia test” panel, with a turnaround time of about 4 weeks at a cost to the patient of about $100, noted Dr. Ellinor, who said that he has begun to discuss such testing with a small number of patients in his practice. “It’s reasonable for selected people; the jury is still out on which ones,” a subject that guideline writers will soon need to address, he said.
Patients already diagnosed with early-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib) could benefit from knowing if they had a TTN LOF mutation because that diagnosis would warrant a magnetic resonance scan to look for “subtle myopathies” not detectable with echocardiography, Dr. Ellinor explained. Identification of a TTN LOF would also be a reason to then test the patient’s children. “Perhaps we should offer testing to everyone 40 years old or younger with AFib,” Dr. Ellinor suggested. Many of these patients are now getting genetic testing for TTN on their own “whether or not their physician wants it done,” he noted.
The most recent, and perhaps most persuasive evidence for the link between TTN LOF mutations and AFib came from a recent report from Dr. Ellinor and associates that examined genome-wide associations in 1,546 people with AFib and 41,593 controls using information contained in the UK Biobank, which holds complete gene sequencing data for about half a million U.K. residents (Circ Res. 2020 Jan 17;126[2]: 200-9). The results showed that just under 0.5% of the entire population carried a TTN LOF mutation, and among patients with AFib the prevalence of a TTN LOF mutation was about 2%, but among people who carry this type of mutation 14% were diagnosed with AFib. This penetrance of 14% for AFib among people with a TTN LOF mutation makes AFib the most frequent clinical consequence identified so far for people with this type of mutation. Other cardiac disorders linked with TTN LOF mutations include heart failure and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The Biobank study findings showed a penetrance for heart failure of about 7% among those with a TTN LOF mutation, and a penetrance of these mutations for nonischemic cardiomyopathy of about 3%.
Dr. Ellinor cited three other recently published studies with consistent results documenting a strong link between TTN LOF mutations and AFib: a study he worked on with lead author Seung H. Choi, Ph.D., and associates that ran an analysis on 2,781 AFib patients and 4,959 controls in a U.S. database of people who underwent whole-genome sequencing (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11; 320[22]:2354-64); a study of 24 Danish families with clusters of three or more affected members with AFib as well as 399 Danish residents with lone, early-onset AFib (Nat Commun. 2018 Oct 17;9[1]:4316); and a study of 25 patients with “very early onset” (less than 45 years old) AFib, which identified four of the 25 patients with a TTN LOF mutation (Circ Genom Precis Med. 2019 Nov 12[11]; 526-8).
Titin is the largest protein in humans and is critical for normal myocardial function. Titin acts as a molecular scaffold for sarcomere assembly and signaling, providing passive stiffness to the sarcomere. Mutations in TTN have been associated with tibial muscular dystrophy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy. The relationship now established between TTN mutations and AFib, cardiomyopathy, and heart failure may in the future help explain the tight clinical association of AFib and heart failure, Dr. Ellinor noted. The TTN gene is also notable as the largest gene in the human genome.
Dr. Ellinor has received research funding from Bayer, and he has served as an adviser or consultant to Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Choi SH et al. Circ Res. 2020 Jan 17;126[2]: 200-9.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Testing to identify mutations in the gene that codes for the muscle protein titin is now a reasonable step in routine clinical practice for selected people with either early-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib) or a family history of atrial fibrillation, or other cardiac disorders that have been strongly linked with titin-gene mutations, Patrick T. Ellinor, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium.
About one out of every 250 people carries a loss of function (LOF) mutation in one of their TTN genes that codes for the titin protein, making these mutations about as common as mutations for familial hypercholesterolemia, noted Dr. Ellinor, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and director of the Cardiovascular Disease Initiative at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. TTN LOF mutations are “bad and very frequent,” he said in an interview. “This is evolving quickly as we start to appreciate how frequent these mutations are.”
Several commercial genetic testing companies now offer testing of blood specimens for TTN LOF mutations, often as part of an “arrhythmia test” panel, with a turnaround time of about 4 weeks at a cost to the patient of about $100, noted Dr. Ellinor, who said that he has begun to discuss such testing with a small number of patients in his practice. “It’s reasonable for selected people; the jury is still out on which ones,” a subject that guideline writers will soon need to address, he said.
Patients already diagnosed with early-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib) could benefit from knowing if they had a TTN LOF mutation because that diagnosis would warrant a magnetic resonance scan to look for “subtle myopathies” not detectable with echocardiography, Dr. Ellinor explained. Identification of a TTN LOF would also be a reason to then test the patient’s children. “Perhaps we should offer testing to everyone 40 years old or younger with AFib,” Dr. Ellinor suggested. Many of these patients are now getting genetic testing for TTN on their own “whether or not their physician wants it done,” he noted.
The most recent, and perhaps most persuasive evidence for the link between TTN LOF mutations and AFib came from a recent report from Dr. Ellinor and associates that examined genome-wide associations in 1,546 people with AFib and 41,593 controls using information contained in the UK Biobank, which holds complete gene sequencing data for about half a million U.K. residents (Circ Res. 2020 Jan 17;126[2]: 200-9). The results showed that just under 0.5% of the entire population carried a TTN LOF mutation, and among patients with AFib the prevalence of a TTN LOF mutation was about 2%, but among people who carry this type of mutation 14% were diagnosed with AFib. This penetrance of 14% for AFib among people with a TTN LOF mutation makes AFib the most frequent clinical consequence identified so far for people with this type of mutation. Other cardiac disorders linked with TTN LOF mutations include heart failure and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The Biobank study findings showed a penetrance for heart failure of about 7% among those with a TTN LOF mutation, and a penetrance of these mutations for nonischemic cardiomyopathy of about 3%.
Dr. Ellinor cited three other recently published studies with consistent results documenting a strong link between TTN LOF mutations and AFib: a study he worked on with lead author Seung H. Choi, Ph.D., and associates that ran an analysis on 2,781 AFib patients and 4,959 controls in a U.S. database of people who underwent whole-genome sequencing (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11; 320[22]:2354-64); a study of 24 Danish families with clusters of three or more affected members with AFib as well as 399 Danish residents with lone, early-onset AFib (Nat Commun. 2018 Oct 17;9[1]:4316); and a study of 25 patients with “very early onset” (less than 45 years old) AFib, which identified four of the 25 patients with a TTN LOF mutation (Circ Genom Precis Med. 2019 Nov 12[11]; 526-8).
Titin is the largest protein in humans and is critical for normal myocardial function. Titin acts as a molecular scaffold for sarcomere assembly and signaling, providing passive stiffness to the sarcomere. Mutations in TTN have been associated with tibial muscular dystrophy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy. The relationship now established between TTN mutations and AFib, cardiomyopathy, and heart failure may in the future help explain the tight clinical association of AFib and heart failure, Dr. Ellinor noted. The TTN gene is also notable as the largest gene in the human genome.
Dr. Ellinor has received research funding from Bayer, and he has served as an adviser or consultant to Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Choi SH et al. Circ Res. 2020 Jan 17;126[2]: 200-9.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Testing to identify mutations in the gene that codes for the muscle protein titin is now a reasonable step in routine clinical practice for selected people with either early-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib) or a family history of atrial fibrillation, or other cardiac disorders that have been strongly linked with titin-gene mutations, Patrick T. Ellinor, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium.
About one out of every 250 people carries a loss of function (LOF) mutation in one of their TTN genes that codes for the titin protein, making these mutations about as common as mutations for familial hypercholesterolemia, noted Dr. Ellinor, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and director of the Cardiovascular Disease Initiative at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. TTN LOF mutations are “bad and very frequent,” he said in an interview. “This is evolving quickly as we start to appreciate how frequent these mutations are.”
Several commercial genetic testing companies now offer testing of blood specimens for TTN LOF mutations, often as part of an “arrhythmia test” panel, with a turnaround time of about 4 weeks at a cost to the patient of about $100, noted Dr. Ellinor, who said that he has begun to discuss such testing with a small number of patients in his practice. “It’s reasonable for selected people; the jury is still out on which ones,” a subject that guideline writers will soon need to address, he said.
Patients already diagnosed with early-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib) could benefit from knowing if they had a TTN LOF mutation because that diagnosis would warrant a magnetic resonance scan to look for “subtle myopathies” not detectable with echocardiography, Dr. Ellinor explained. Identification of a TTN LOF would also be a reason to then test the patient’s children. “Perhaps we should offer testing to everyone 40 years old or younger with AFib,” Dr. Ellinor suggested. Many of these patients are now getting genetic testing for TTN on their own “whether or not their physician wants it done,” he noted.
The most recent, and perhaps most persuasive evidence for the link between TTN LOF mutations and AFib came from a recent report from Dr. Ellinor and associates that examined genome-wide associations in 1,546 people with AFib and 41,593 controls using information contained in the UK Biobank, which holds complete gene sequencing data for about half a million U.K. residents (Circ Res. 2020 Jan 17;126[2]: 200-9). The results showed that just under 0.5% of the entire population carried a TTN LOF mutation, and among patients with AFib the prevalence of a TTN LOF mutation was about 2%, but among people who carry this type of mutation 14% were diagnosed with AFib. This penetrance of 14% for AFib among people with a TTN LOF mutation makes AFib the most frequent clinical consequence identified so far for people with this type of mutation. Other cardiac disorders linked with TTN LOF mutations include heart failure and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The Biobank study findings showed a penetrance for heart failure of about 7% among those with a TTN LOF mutation, and a penetrance of these mutations for nonischemic cardiomyopathy of about 3%.
Dr. Ellinor cited three other recently published studies with consistent results documenting a strong link between TTN LOF mutations and AFib: a study he worked on with lead author Seung H. Choi, Ph.D., and associates that ran an analysis on 2,781 AFib patients and 4,959 controls in a U.S. database of people who underwent whole-genome sequencing (JAMA. 2018 Dec 11; 320[22]:2354-64); a study of 24 Danish families with clusters of three or more affected members with AFib as well as 399 Danish residents with lone, early-onset AFib (Nat Commun. 2018 Oct 17;9[1]:4316); and a study of 25 patients with “very early onset” (less than 45 years old) AFib, which identified four of the 25 patients with a TTN LOF mutation (Circ Genom Precis Med. 2019 Nov 12[11]; 526-8).
Titin is the largest protein in humans and is critical for normal myocardial function. Titin acts as a molecular scaffold for sarcomere assembly and signaling, providing passive stiffness to the sarcomere. Mutations in TTN have been associated with tibial muscular dystrophy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy. The relationship now established between TTN mutations and AFib, cardiomyopathy, and heart failure may in the future help explain the tight clinical association of AFib and heart failure, Dr. Ellinor noted. The TTN gene is also notable as the largest gene in the human genome.
Dr. Ellinor has received research funding from Bayer, and he has served as an adviser or consultant to Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Choi SH et al. Circ Res. 2020 Jan 17;126[2]: 200-9.
REPORTING FROM THE AF SYMPOSIUM 2020
FDA: Cybersecurity vulnerabilities identified in GE Healthcare monitoring devices
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
New Vascepa indication opens up treatment to millions; “Most significant event since statins”
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Actor Alan Alda discusses using empathy as an antidote to burnout
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
Carbs, fat, and mortality: Types matter more than levels
The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.
“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.
The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.
The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.
The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.
The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.
The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.
This is an important study because the findings reinforce the already established concept that it’s the quality of the fat and carbohydrate a person eats that matters for health, rather than the relative levels of these nutrients. Eating unsaturated fats and unprocessed carbohydrates like whole grains, fruits, and legumes produces the greatest health and survival, while higher levels of saturated fats and processed carbs in the diet produce health problems. That’s much more important than whether a diet is low fat or low carb. This means sticking with the food principles advanced by the AHA diet, the DASH diet, and a Mediterranean diet.
High-fat and low-carb diets are popular because people who follow them lose weight over the short term, but those weight losses are hard to sustain longer term and create an opportunity for unhealthy effects if people eat the wrong fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Strategies that focus on healthier food choices like the Mediterranean or AHA diets can minimize disease and produce more sustainable weight control.
Robert A. Vogel, MD , is a cardiologist in Denver affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the VA Medical Center in Denver. He has been a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Institute in Doral, Fla. He made these comments in an interview.
This is an important study because the findings reinforce the already established concept that it’s the quality of the fat and carbohydrate a person eats that matters for health, rather than the relative levels of these nutrients. Eating unsaturated fats and unprocessed carbohydrates like whole grains, fruits, and legumes produces the greatest health and survival, while higher levels of saturated fats and processed carbs in the diet produce health problems. That’s much more important than whether a diet is low fat or low carb. This means sticking with the food principles advanced by the AHA diet, the DASH diet, and a Mediterranean diet.
High-fat and low-carb diets are popular because people who follow them lose weight over the short term, but those weight losses are hard to sustain longer term and create an opportunity for unhealthy effects if people eat the wrong fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Strategies that focus on healthier food choices like the Mediterranean or AHA diets can minimize disease and produce more sustainable weight control.
Robert A. Vogel, MD , is a cardiologist in Denver affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the VA Medical Center in Denver. He has been a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Institute in Doral, Fla. He made these comments in an interview.
This is an important study because the findings reinforce the already established concept that it’s the quality of the fat and carbohydrate a person eats that matters for health, rather than the relative levels of these nutrients. Eating unsaturated fats and unprocessed carbohydrates like whole grains, fruits, and legumes produces the greatest health and survival, while higher levels of saturated fats and processed carbs in the diet produce health problems. That’s much more important than whether a diet is low fat or low carb. This means sticking with the food principles advanced by the AHA diet, the DASH diet, and a Mediterranean diet.
High-fat and low-carb diets are popular because people who follow them lose weight over the short term, but those weight losses are hard to sustain longer term and create an opportunity for unhealthy effects if people eat the wrong fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Strategies that focus on healthier food choices like the Mediterranean or AHA diets can minimize disease and produce more sustainable weight control.
Robert A. Vogel, MD , is a cardiologist in Denver affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the VA Medical Center in Denver. He has been a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Institute in Doral, Fla. He made these comments in an interview.
The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.
“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.
The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.
The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.
The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.
The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.
The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.
The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.
“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.
The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.
The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.
The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.
The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.
The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.
REPORTING FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Redo PCI or CABG, left main patients pay a price: EXCEL
Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).
“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”
That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.
Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.
The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).
The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).
The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).
The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.
Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”
Enhancing durability
“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.
In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.
“There are also data suggesting careful image guidance during complex PCI is associated with a mortality benefit,” they wrote. “In a similar fashion, arterial revascularization (especially with a mammary artery graft to the [left anterior descending]) and complete revascularization during CABG needs to be achieved.”
“Surgeons need to be intellectually challenged to not take the easy way out and just do a saphenous vein graft,” Dr. Shemin agreed. “And because we are dealing with an underlying progressive disease, continued medical and preventive measures to prevent atherosclerosis are key.”
Higher body mass index, insulin-treated diabetes, and hemodynamic support during the procedure were associated with a higher risk for repeat revascularization after PCI, whereas statin use at discharge was protective.
Younger age, female sex, and peripheral vascular disease were independent predictors of repeat revascularization after CABG.
Most redo procedures were performed by PCI in both groups. However, repeat revascularization by CABG was more common during follow-up in patients randomized to initial PCI vs. CABG (3.3% vs .0.8%; P = .0002) and was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality.
“This observation suggests that CABG should be reserved for repeat revascularization procedures that are not amenable to repeat PCI, irrespective of the initial revascularization approach,” the authors wrote.
The editorialists point out that more than half of EXCEL patients with one repeat revascularization went on to have another. Overall, 55.1% of patients underwent one repeat revascularization, 22.2% underwent two redos, and 22.7% underwent more than two redos.
Although enhancing the durability of the initial revascularization is an important goal, “one might also conclude that a safer and potentially more durable treatment specifically developed for recurrent lesions is as equally an important objective,” they opined.
5-year kerfuffle
As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.
However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.
On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.
“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.
“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”
EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).
“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”
That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.
Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.
The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).
The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).
The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).
The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.
Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”
Enhancing durability
“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.
In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.
“There are also data suggesting careful image guidance during complex PCI is associated with a mortality benefit,” they wrote. “In a similar fashion, arterial revascularization (especially with a mammary artery graft to the [left anterior descending]) and complete revascularization during CABG needs to be achieved.”
“Surgeons need to be intellectually challenged to not take the easy way out and just do a saphenous vein graft,” Dr. Shemin agreed. “And because we are dealing with an underlying progressive disease, continued medical and preventive measures to prevent atherosclerosis are key.”
Higher body mass index, insulin-treated diabetes, and hemodynamic support during the procedure were associated with a higher risk for repeat revascularization after PCI, whereas statin use at discharge was protective.
Younger age, female sex, and peripheral vascular disease were independent predictors of repeat revascularization after CABG.
Most redo procedures were performed by PCI in both groups. However, repeat revascularization by CABG was more common during follow-up in patients randomized to initial PCI vs. CABG (3.3% vs .0.8%; P = .0002) and was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality.
“This observation suggests that CABG should be reserved for repeat revascularization procedures that are not amenable to repeat PCI, irrespective of the initial revascularization approach,” the authors wrote.
The editorialists point out that more than half of EXCEL patients with one repeat revascularization went on to have another. Overall, 55.1% of patients underwent one repeat revascularization, 22.2% underwent two redos, and 22.7% underwent more than two redos.
Although enhancing the durability of the initial revascularization is an important goal, “one might also conclude that a safer and potentially more durable treatment specifically developed for recurrent lesions is as equally an important objective,” they opined.
5-year kerfuffle
As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.
However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.
On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.
“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.
“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”
EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).
“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”
That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.
Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.
The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).
The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).
The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).
The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.
Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”
Enhancing durability
“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.
In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.
“There are also data suggesting careful image guidance during complex PCI is associated with a mortality benefit,” they wrote. “In a similar fashion, arterial revascularization (especially with a mammary artery graft to the [left anterior descending]) and complete revascularization during CABG needs to be achieved.”
“Surgeons need to be intellectually challenged to not take the easy way out and just do a saphenous vein graft,” Dr. Shemin agreed. “And because we are dealing with an underlying progressive disease, continued medical and preventive measures to prevent atherosclerosis are key.”
Higher body mass index, insulin-treated diabetes, and hemodynamic support during the procedure were associated with a higher risk for repeat revascularization after PCI, whereas statin use at discharge was protective.
Younger age, female sex, and peripheral vascular disease were independent predictors of repeat revascularization after CABG.
Most redo procedures were performed by PCI in both groups. However, repeat revascularization by CABG was more common during follow-up in patients randomized to initial PCI vs. CABG (3.3% vs .0.8%; P = .0002) and was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality.
“This observation suggests that CABG should be reserved for repeat revascularization procedures that are not amenable to repeat PCI, irrespective of the initial revascularization approach,” the authors wrote.
The editorialists point out that more than half of EXCEL patients with one repeat revascularization went on to have another. Overall, 55.1% of patients underwent one repeat revascularization, 22.2% underwent two redos, and 22.7% underwent more than two redos.
Although enhancing the durability of the initial revascularization is an important goal, “one might also conclude that a safer and potentially more durable treatment specifically developed for recurrent lesions is as equally an important objective,” they opined.
5-year kerfuffle
As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.
However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.
On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.
“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.
“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”
EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Why STEMI patients benefit from PCI of nonculprit lesions
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Cardiac biomarkers refine antihypertensive drug initiation decisions
PHILADELPHIA – Incorporation of cardiac biomarkers into current guideline-based decision-making regarding initiation of antihypertensive medication in patients with previously untreated mild or moderate high blood pressure leads to more appropriate and selective matching of intensive blood pressure control with true patient risk, Ambarish Pandey, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
That’s because the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA blood pressure guidelines recommend incorporating the ACC/AHA 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk Calculator into decision making as to whether to start antihypertensive drug therapy in patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), but the risk calculator doesn’t account for the risk of heart failure.
Yet by far the greatest benefit of intensive BP lowering is in reducing the risk of developing heart failure, as demonstrated in the landmark SPRINT trial, which showed that intensive BP lowering achieved much greater risk reduction in new-onset heart failure than in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.
Thus, there’s a need for better strategies to guide antihypertensive therapy. And therein lies the rationale for incorporating into the risk assessment an individual’s values for N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), which reflects chronic myocardial stress, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which when elevated signals myocardial injury.
“Cardiac biomarkers are intermediate phenotypes from hypertension to future cardiovascular events. They can identify individuals at increased risk for atherosclerotic events, and at even higher risk for heart failure events,” explained Dr. Pandey, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
He presented a study of 12,987 participants in three major U.S. cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Dallas Heart Study. At baseline, none of the participants were on antihypertensive therapy or had known cardiovascular disease. During 10 years of prospective follow-up, 825 of them experienced a first cardiovascular disease event: 251 developed heart failure and 574 had an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Dr. Pandey and his coworkers calculated the cardiovascular event incidence rate and number-needed-to-treat with intensive antihypertensive drug therapy to prevent a first cardiovascular disease event on the basis of whether patients in the various BP categories were positive or negative for one or more biomarkers.
The results
Fifty-four percent of subjects had normal BP, defined in the guidelines as less than 120/80 mm Hg. Another 3% had BP in excess of 160/100 mm Hg. No controversy exists regarding pharmacotherapy in either of these groups: It’s not warranted in the former, essential in the latter.
Another 3,000 individuals had what the ACC/AHA guidelines define as elevated BP, meaning 120-129/<80 mm Hg, or low-risk stage 1 hypertension of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and a 10-year ASCVD risk score of less than 10%. Initiation of antihypertensive medication in these groups is not recommended in the guidelines. Yet 36% of these individuals had at least one positive cardiac biomarker. And here’s the eye-opening finding: Notably, the 10-year cardiovascular event incidence rate in this biomarker group not currently recommended for antihypertensive pharmacotherapy was 11%, more than double the 4.6% rate in the biomarker-negative group, which in turn was comparable to the 3.8% in the normal BP participants.
Antihypertensive therapy was recommended according to the guidelines in 20% of the total study population, comprising patients with stage 1 hypertension who had an ASCVD risk score of 10% or more as well as those with stage 2 hypertension, defined as BP greater than 140/90 mm Hg but less than 160/100 mm Hg. Forty-eight percent of these subjects were positive for at least one biomarker. Their cardiovascular incidence rate was 15.1%, compared to the 7.9% rate in biomarker-negative individuals.
The estimated number-needed-to-treat (NNT) with intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, as in SPRINT, to prevent one cardiovascular event in individuals not currently guideline-recommended for antihypertensive medications was 86 in those who were biomarker-negative. The NNT dropped to 36 in the biomarker-positive subgroup, a far more attractive figure that suggests a reasonable likelihood of benefit from intensive blood pressure control, in Dr. Pandey’s view.
Similarly, among individuals currently recommended for pharmacotherapy initiation, the NNTs were 49 if biomarker-negative, improving to 26 in those positive for one or both biomarkers, which was comparable to the NNT of 22 in the group with blood pressures greater than 160/100 mm Hg. The NNT of 49 in the biomarker-negative subgroup is in a borderline gray zone warranting individualized shared decision-making regarding pharmacotherapy, Dr. Pandey said.
In this study, an elevated hs-cTnT was defined as 6 ng/L or more, while an elevated NT-proBNP was considered to be at least 100 pg/mL.
“It’s noteworthy that the degree of elevation in hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP which were observed in our study were pretty subtle and much below the threshold used for diagnosis of ischemic events or heart failure. Thus, these elevations were largely representative of subtle chronic injury and not acute events,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member asked if the elevated biomarkers could simply be a surrogate for longer duration of exposure of the heart to high BP. Sure, Dr. Pandey replied, pointing to the 6-year greater average age of the biomarker-positive participants.
“It is likely that biomarker-positive status is capturing the culmination of longstanding exposure. But the thing about hypertension is there are no symptoms that can signal to the patient or the doctor that they have this disease, so testing for the biomarkers can actually capture the high-risk group that may have had hypertension for a long duration but now needs to be treated in order to prevent the advance of downstream adverse events,” he said.
Dr. Pandey reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Pandey A. AHA 2019 Abstract EP.AOS.521.141
PHILADELPHIA – Incorporation of cardiac biomarkers into current guideline-based decision-making regarding initiation of antihypertensive medication in patients with previously untreated mild or moderate high blood pressure leads to more appropriate and selective matching of intensive blood pressure control with true patient risk, Ambarish Pandey, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
That’s because the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA blood pressure guidelines recommend incorporating the ACC/AHA 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk Calculator into decision making as to whether to start antihypertensive drug therapy in patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), but the risk calculator doesn’t account for the risk of heart failure.
Yet by far the greatest benefit of intensive BP lowering is in reducing the risk of developing heart failure, as demonstrated in the landmark SPRINT trial, which showed that intensive BP lowering achieved much greater risk reduction in new-onset heart failure than in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.
Thus, there’s a need for better strategies to guide antihypertensive therapy. And therein lies the rationale for incorporating into the risk assessment an individual’s values for N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), which reflects chronic myocardial stress, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which when elevated signals myocardial injury.
“Cardiac biomarkers are intermediate phenotypes from hypertension to future cardiovascular events. They can identify individuals at increased risk for atherosclerotic events, and at even higher risk for heart failure events,” explained Dr. Pandey, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
He presented a study of 12,987 participants in three major U.S. cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Dallas Heart Study. At baseline, none of the participants were on antihypertensive therapy or had known cardiovascular disease. During 10 years of prospective follow-up, 825 of them experienced a first cardiovascular disease event: 251 developed heart failure and 574 had an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Dr. Pandey and his coworkers calculated the cardiovascular event incidence rate and number-needed-to-treat with intensive antihypertensive drug therapy to prevent a first cardiovascular disease event on the basis of whether patients in the various BP categories were positive or negative for one or more biomarkers.
The results
Fifty-four percent of subjects had normal BP, defined in the guidelines as less than 120/80 mm Hg. Another 3% had BP in excess of 160/100 mm Hg. No controversy exists regarding pharmacotherapy in either of these groups: It’s not warranted in the former, essential in the latter.
Another 3,000 individuals had what the ACC/AHA guidelines define as elevated BP, meaning 120-129/<80 mm Hg, or low-risk stage 1 hypertension of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and a 10-year ASCVD risk score of less than 10%. Initiation of antihypertensive medication in these groups is not recommended in the guidelines. Yet 36% of these individuals had at least one positive cardiac biomarker. And here’s the eye-opening finding: Notably, the 10-year cardiovascular event incidence rate in this biomarker group not currently recommended for antihypertensive pharmacotherapy was 11%, more than double the 4.6% rate in the biomarker-negative group, which in turn was comparable to the 3.8% in the normal BP participants.
Antihypertensive therapy was recommended according to the guidelines in 20% of the total study population, comprising patients with stage 1 hypertension who had an ASCVD risk score of 10% or more as well as those with stage 2 hypertension, defined as BP greater than 140/90 mm Hg but less than 160/100 mm Hg. Forty-eight percent of these subjects were positive for at least one biomarker. Their cardiovascular incidence rate was 15.1%, compared to the 7.9% rate in biomarker-negative individuals.
The estimated number-needed-to-treat (NNT) with intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, as in SPRINT, to prevent one cardiovascular event in individuals not currently guideline-recommended for antihypertensive medications was 86 in those who were biomarker-negative. The NNT dropped to 36 in the biomarker-positive subgroup, a far more attractive figure that suggests a reasonable likelihood of benefit from intensive blood pressure control, in Dr. Pandey’s view.
Similarly, among individuals currently recommended for pharmacotherapy initiation, the NNTs were 49 if biomarker-negative, improving to 26 in those positive for one or both biomarkers, which was comparable to the NNT of 22 in the group with blood pressures greater than 160/100 mm Hg. The NNT of 49 in the biomarker-negative subgroup is in a borderline gray zone warranting individualized shared decision-making regarding pharmacotherapy, Dr. Pandey said.
In this study, an elevated hs-cTnT was defined as 6 ng/L or more, while an elevated NT-proBNP was considered to be at least 100 pg/mL.
“It’s noteworthy that the degree of elevation in hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP which were observed in our study were pretty subtle and much below the threshold used for diagnosis of ischemic events or heart failure. Thus, these elevations were largely representative of subtle chronic injury and not acute events,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member asked if the elevated biomarkers could simply be a surrogate for longer duration of exposure of the heart to high BP. Sure, Dr. Pandey replied, pointing to the 6-year greater average age of the biomarker-positive participants.
“It is likely that biomarker-positive status is capturing the culmination of longstanding exposure. But the thing about hypertension is there are no symptoms that can signal to the patient or the doctor that they have this disease, so testing for the biomarkers can actually capture the high-risk group that may have had hypertension for a long duration but now needs to be treated in order to prevent the advance of downstream adverse events,” he said.
Dr. Pandey reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Pandey A. AHA 2019 Abstract EP.AOS.521.141
PHILADELPHIA – Incorporation of cardiac biomarkers into current guideline-based decision-making regarding initiation of antihypertensive medication in patients with previously untreated mild or moderate high blood pressure leads to more appropriate and selective matching of intensive blood pressure control with true patient risk, Ambarish Pandey, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
That’s because the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA blood pressure guidelines recommend incorporating the ACC/AHA 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk Calculator into decision making as to whether to start antihypertensive drug therapy in patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), but the risk calculator doesn’t account for the risk of heart failure.
Yet by far the greatest benefit of intensive BP lowering is in reducing the risk of developing heart failure, as demonstrated in the landmark SPRINT trial, which showed that intensive BP lowering achieved much greater risk reduction in new-onset heart failure than in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.
Thus, there’s a need for better strategies to guide antihypertensive therapy. And therein lies the rationale for incorporating into the risk assessment an individual’s values for N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), which reflects chronic myocardial stress, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which when elevated signals myocardial injury.
“Cardiac biomarkers are intermediate phenotypes from hypertension to future cardiovascular events. They can identify individuals at increased risk for atherosclerotic events, and at even higher risk for heart failure events,” explained Dr. Pandey, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
He presented a study of 12,987 participants in three major U.S. cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Dallas Heart Study. At baseline, none of the participants were on antihypertensive therapy or had known cardiovascular disease. During 10 years of prospective follow-up, 825 of them experienced a first cardiovascular disease event: 251 developed heart failure and 574 had an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Dr. Pandey and his coworkers calculated the cardiovascular event incidence rate and number-needed-to-treat with intensive antihypertensive drug therapy to prevent a first cardiovascular disease event on the basis of whether patients in the various BP categories were positive or negative for one or more biomarkers.
The results
Fifty-four percent of subjects had normal BP, defined in the guidelines as less than 120/80 mm Hg. Another 3% had BP in excess of 160/100 mm Hg. No controversy exists regarding pharmacotherapy in either of these groups: It’s not warranted in the former, essential in the latter.
Another 3,000 individuals had what the ACC/AHA guidelines define as elevated BP, meaning 120-129/<80 mm Hg, or low-risk stage 1 hypertension of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and a 10-year ASCVD risk score of less than 10%. Initiation of antihypertensive medication in these groups is not recommended in the guidelines. Yet 36% of these individuals had at least one positive cardiac biomarker. And here’s the eye-opening finding: Notably, the 10-year cardiovascular event incidence rate in this biomarker group not currently recommended for antihypertensive pharmacotherapy was 11%, more than double the 4.6% rate in the biomarker-negative group, which in turn was comparable to the 3.8% in the normal BP participants.
Antihypertensive therapy was recommended according to the guidelines in 20% of the total study population, comprising patients with stage 1 hypertension who had an ASCVD risk score of 10% or more as well as those with stage 2 hypertension, defined as BP greater than 140/90 mm Hg but less than 160/100 mm Hg. Forty-eight percent of these subjects were positive for at least one biomarker. Their cardiovascular incidence rate was 15.1%, compared to the 7.9% rate in biomarker-negative individuals.
The estimated number-needed-to-treat (NNT) with intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, as in SPRINT, to prevent one cardiovascular event in individuals not currently guideline-recommended for antihypertensive medications was 86 in those who were biomarker-negative. The NNT dropped to 36 in the biomarker-positive subgroup, a far more attractive figure that suggests a reasonable likelihood of benefit from intensive blood pressure control, in Dr. Pandey’s view.
Similarly, among individuals currently recommended for pharmacotherapy initiation, the NNTs were 49 if biomarker-negative, improving to 26 in those positive for one or both biomarkers, which was comparable to the NNT of 22 in the group with blood pressures greater than 160/100 mm Hg. The NNT of 49 in the biomarker-negative subgroup is in a borderline gray zone warranting individualized shared decision-making regarding pharmacotherapy, Dr. Pandey said.
In this study, an elevated hs-cTnT was defined as 6 ng/L or more, while an elevated NT-proBNP was considered to be at least 100 pg/mL.
“It’s noteworthy that the degree of elevation in hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP which were observed in our study were pretty subtle and much below the threshold used for diagnosis of ischemic events or heart failure. Thus, these elevations were largely representative of subtle chronic injury and not acute events,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member asked if the elevated biomarkers could simply be a surrogate for longer duration of exposure of the heart to high BP. Sure, Dr. Pandey replied, pointing to the 6-year greater average age of the biomarker-positive participants.
“It is likely that biomarker-positive status is capturing the culmination of longstanding exposure. But the thing about hypertension is there are no symptoms that can signal to the patient or the doctor that they have this disease, so testing for the biomarkers can actually capture the high-risk group that may have had hypertension for a long duration but now needs to be treated in order to prevent the advance of downstream adverse events,” he said.
Dr. Pandey reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Pandey A. AHA 2019 Abstract EP.AOS.521.141
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Washington state patient is first U.S. case of novel coronavirus
The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.
The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.
More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.
Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.
The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.
Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.
The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.
Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.
The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.
The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.
More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.
Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.
The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.
Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.
The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.
Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.
The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.
The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.
More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.
Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.
The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.
Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.
The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.
Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.
REPORTING FROM CDC
Renal denervation rebounds
PHILADELPHIA – Enthusiasm for catheter-based renal denervation as a potential nondrug treatment for hypertension is once again on the rise, Michael Bohm, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The field experienced “a big depression” in 2014 with the publication of the unexpectedly negative results of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1393-401), he said. But post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.
“All of the flaws of this trial have been eliminated and now there is a very tightly controlled program to show whether renal denervation will work or not,” according to Dr. Bohm, director of the department of internal medicine and professor of cardiology at Saarland University in Homburg, Germany.
Indeed, three randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept clinical trials – all with strongly positive results – were published in Lancet in 2017 and 2018: SPYRAL HTN-OFF (2017 Nov 11;390:2160-70), RADIANCE SOLO (2018 Jun 9;391:2335-45), and SPYRAL HTN-ON (2018 May 23;391:2346-55). Based on the encouraging findings, four large pivotal trials of renal denervation (RDN) for hypertension are ongoing: RADIANCE HTN, REQUIRE, RADIANCE II, and SPYRAL HTN-ON MED. In addition, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial has been completed and will be presented soon, Dr. Bohm said.
Defining who’s most likely to benefit
Treatment response has been quite variable within the various RDN trials. A reliable predictor of response would be an important advance because it would enable physicians to select the best candidates for treatment while sparing others from an invasive procedure – albeit a relatively safe one – that they may not benefit from. On this front, Dr. Bohm and colleagues have recently reported that a baseline 24-hour heart rate above the median value of 73.5 bpm in the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED trial – a marker for sympathetic overdrive – was associated with a 10.7/7.5 mm Hg greater reduction in average ambulatory blood pressures post-RDN than with a sham procedure. In contrast, blood pressure changes in RDN recipients with a below-median baseline 24-hour heart rate weren’t significant (Eur Heart J. 2019 Mar 1;40:743-51).
“Although this is a little bit rough, there is no other really true and reliable marker,” the cardiologist observed.
A pressing need exists for a reliable intraprocedural indicator of success. Dr. Bohm noted that Australian investigators are pursuing a promising approach in animal studies: intraprocedural transvascular high-frequency pacing of the aorticorenal ganglia. Abolition of the pacing-induced increase in blood pressure may be an indicator of complete RDN (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jun 24;12:1109-20).
Applications other than hypertension
Renal denervation is under early-stage investigation for a range of other cardiovascular diseases in which sympathetic overdrive figures prominently.
“The truly interesting things in renal denervation are what happens beyond hypertension. There are a lot of potential applications,” according to Dr. Bohm.
For example, when RDN was performed alongside pulmonary vein isolation for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients, the arrhythmia recurrence rate was significantly reduced during 1 year of follow-up, compared with AF ablation alone, in the randomized, multicenter, 302-patient ERADICATE-AF trial, presented at the most recent meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society.
Also, a small, uncontrolled registry study of RDN in patients with cardiomyopathy and electrical storm suggests the procedure may have an immediate anti–ventricular arrhythmia effect.
Meanwhile, Dr. Bohm is pressing the German government to sponsor an independent randomized controlled trial of RDN for heart failure. He and others have shown in small pilot studies a promising signal that the treatment may improve myocardial function and the signs and symptoms of heart failure in both patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction – and without reducing their blood pressure, which is often already low.
Dr. Bohm and others have also been exploring the impact of RDN in patients with metabolic syndrome. The treatment has a sound pathophysiologic rationale because insulin resistance is dependent upon sympathetic nervous system activation. Preliminary reports show improved insulin sensitivity in response to RDN. Patients also report better quality of life, presumably because of the reduction in sympathetic overactivity.
A couple of small Chinese studies suggest denervating the pulmonary vein in patients with pulmonary hypertension leads to a salutary reduction in pulmonary blood pressures.
“We haven’t done that yet. There is no properly designed catheter. They’ve used a Spyra unipolar catheter. It could work, but it hasn’t been rigorously investigated,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Bohm reported serving as a scientific adviser to Abbott, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
PHILADELPHIA – Enthusiasm for catheter-based renal denervation as a potential nondrug treatment for hypertension is once again on the rise, Michael Bohm, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The field experienced “a big depression” in 2014 with the publication of the unexpectedly negative results of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1393-401), he said. But post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.
“All of the flaws of this trial have been eliminated and now there is a very tightly controlled program to show whether renal denervation will work or not,” according to Dr. Bohm, director of the department of internal medicine and professor of cardiology at Saarland University in Homburg, Germany.
Indeed, three randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept clinical trials – all with strongly positive results – were published in Lancet in 2017 and 2018: SPYRAL HTN-OFF (2017 Nov 11;390:2160-70), RADIANCE SOLO (2018 Jun 9;391:2335-45), and SPYRAL HTN-ON (2018 May 23;391:2346-55). Based on the encouraging findings, four large pivotal trials of renal denervation (RDN) for hypertension are ongoing: RADIANCE HTN, REQUIRE, RADIANCE II, and SPYRAL HTN-ON MED. In addition, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial has been completed and will be presented soon, Dr. Bohm said.
Defining who’s most likely to benefit
Treatment response has been quite variable within the various RDN trials. A reliable predictor of response would be an important advance because it would enable physicians to select the best candidates for treatment while sparing others from an invasive procedure – albeit a relatively safe one – that they may not benefit from. On this front, Dr. Bohm and colleagues have recently reported that a baseline 24-hour heart rate above the median value of 73.5 bpm in the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED trial – a marker for sympathetic overdrive – was associated with a 10.7/7.5 mm Hg greater reduction in average ambulatory blood pressures post-RDN than with a sham procedure. In contrast, blood pressure changes in RDN recipients with a below-median baseline 24-hour heart rate weren’t significant (Eur Heart J. 2019 Mar 1;40:743-51).
“Although this is a little bit rough, there is no other really true and reliable marker,” the cardiologist observed.
A pressing need exists for a reliable intraprocedural indicator of success. Dr. Bohm noted that Australian investigators are pursuing a promising approach in animal studies: intraprocedural transvascular high-frequency pacing of the aorticorenal ganglia. Abolition of the pacing-induced increase in blood pressure may be an indicator of complete RDN (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jun 24;12:1109-20).
Applications other than hypertension
Renal denervation is under early-stage investigation for a range of other cardiovascular diseases in which sympathetic overdrive figures prominently.
“The truly interesting things in renal denervation are what happens beyond hypertension. There are a lot of potential applications,” according to Dr. Bohm.
For example, when RDN was performed alongside pulmonary vein isolation for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients, the arrhythmia recurrence rate was significantly reduced during 1 year of follow-up, compared with AF ablation alone, in the randomized, multicenter, 302-patient ERADICATE-AF trial, presented at the most recent meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society.
Also, a small, uncontrolled registry study of RDN in patients with cardiomyopathy and electrical storm suggests the procedure may have an immediate anti–ventricular arrhythmia effect.
Meanwhile, Dr. Bohm is pressing the German government to sponsor an independent randomized controlled trial of RDN for heart failure. He and others have shown in small pilot studies a promising signal that the treatment may improve myocardial function and the signs and symptoms of heart failure in both patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction – and without reducing their blood pressure, which is often already low.
Dr. Bohm and others have also been exploring the impact of RDN in patients with metabolic syndrome. The treatment has a sound pathophysiologic rationale because insulin resistance is dependent upon sympathetic nervous system activation. Preliminary reports show improved insulin sensitivity in response to RDN. Patients also report better quality of life, presumably because of the reduction in sympathetic overactivity.
A couple of small Chinese studies suggest denervating the pulmonary vein in patients with pulmonary hypertension leads to a salutary reduction in pulmonary blood pressures.
“We haven’t done that yet. There is no properly designed catheter. They’ve used a Spyra unipolar catheter. It could work, but it hasn’t been rigorously investigated,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Bohm reported serving as a scientific adviser to Abbott, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
PHILADELPHIA – Enthusiasm for catheter-based renal denervation as a potential nondrug treatment for hypertension is once again on the rise, Michael Bohm, MD, observed at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The field experienced “a big depression” in 2014 with the publication of the unexpectedly negative results of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1393-401), he said. But post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.
“All of the flaws of this trial have been eliminated and now there is a very tightly controlled program to show whether renal denervation will work or not,” according to Dr. Bohm, director of the department of internal medicine and professor of cardiology at Saarland University in Homburg, Germany.
Indeed, three randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept clinical trials – all with strongly positive results – were published in Lancet in 2017 and 2018: SPYRAL HTN-OFF (2017 Nov 11;390:2160-70), RADIANCE SOLO (2018 Jun 9;391:2335-45), and SPYRAL HTN-ON (2018 May 23;391:2346-55). Based on the encouraging findings, four large pivotal trials of renal denervation (RDN) for hypertension are ongoing: RADIANCE HTN, REQUIRE, RADIANCE II, and SPYRAL HTN-ON MED. In addition, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial has been completed and will be presented soon, Dr. Bohm said.
Defining who’s most likely to benefit
Treatment response has been quite variable within the various RDN trials. A reliable predictor of response would be an important advance because it would enable physicians to select the best candidates for treatment while sparing others from an invasive procedure – albeit a relatively safe one – that they may not benefit from. On this front, Dr. Bohm and colleagues have recently reported that a baseline 24-hour heart rate above the median value of 73.5 bpm in the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED trial – a marker for sympathetic overdrive – was associated with a 10.7/7.5 mm Hg greater reduction in average ambulatory blood pressures post-RDN than with a sham procedure. In contrast, blood pressure changes in RDN recipients with a below-median baseline 24-hour heart rate weren’t significant (Eur Heart J. 2019 Mar 1;40:743-51).
“Although this is a little bit rough, there is no other really true and reliable marker,” the cardiologist observed.
A pressing need exists for a reliable intraprocedural indicator of success. Dr. Bohm noted that Australian investigators are pursuing a promising approach in animal studies: intraprocedural transvascular high-frequency pacing of the aorticorenal ganglia. Abolition of the pacing-induced increase in blood pressure may be an indicator of complete RDN (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jun 24;12:1109-20).
Applications other than hypertension
Renal denervation is under early-stage investigation for a range of other cardiovascular diseases in which sympathetic overdrive figures prominently.
“The truly interesting things in renal denervation are what happens beyond hypertension. There are a lot of potential applications,” according to Dr. Bohm.
For example, when RDN was performed alongside pulmonary vein isolation for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients, the arrhythmia recurrence rate was significantly reduced during 1 year of follow-up, compared with AF ablation alone, in the randomized, multicenter, 302-patient ERADICATE-AF trial, presented at the most recent meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society.
Also, a small, uncontrolled registry study of RDN in patients with cardiomyopathy and electrical storm suggests the procedure may have an immediate anti–ventricular arrhythmia effect.
Meanwhile, Dr. Bohm is pressing the German government to sponsor an independent randomized controlled trial of RDN for heart failure. He and others have shown in small pilot studies a promising signal that the treatment may improve myocardial function and the signs and symptoms of heart failure in both patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction – and without reducing their blood pressure, which is often already low.
Dr. Bohm and others have also been exploring the impact of RDN in patients with metabolic syndrome. The treatment has a sound pathophysiologic rationale because insulin resistance is dependent upon sympathetic nervous system activation. Preliminary reports show improved insulin sensitivity in response to RDN. Patients also report better quality of life, presumably because of the reduction in sympathetic overactivity.
A couple of small Chinese studies suggest denervating the pulmonary vein in patients with pulmonary hypertension leads to a salutary reduction in pulmonary blood pressures.
“We haven’t done that yet. There is no properly designed catheter. They’ve used a Spyra unipolar catheter. It could work, but it hasn’t been rigorously investigated,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Bohm reported serving as a scientific adviser to Abbott, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AHA 2019