Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

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

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

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

AI favored for all major endpoints

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

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

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

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

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

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

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

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

AI favored for all major endpoints

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

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

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

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

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

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

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

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

AI favored for all major endpoints

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

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

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

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

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-dippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to recommend in clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

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

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

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

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

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

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

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

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

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

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

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

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

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

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

SECURE trial is latest test of polypill concept

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

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

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

Multiple polypill versions permit dose titration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polypill benefit documented in all subgroups

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

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science showing ‘frighteningly similar’ symptoms

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

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

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

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

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

Advocacy groups want to see more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science showing ‘frighteningly similar’ symptoms

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

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

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

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

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

Advocacy groups want to see more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science showing ‘frighteningly similar’ symptoms

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

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

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

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

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

Advocacy groups want to see more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patients with COVID-19 who experience gastrointestinal symptoms have overall worse in-hospital complications but less cardiomyopathy and mortality, according to a new study.

About 20% of COVID-19 patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which clinicians should consider when treating their hospitalized patients, wrote researchers led by Nikita Patil, MD, a hospitalist at Nash General Hospital–UNC Nash Healthcare in Rocky Mount, N.C., in Gastro Hep Advances.

“It’s important to know that certain complications are higher in people with GI symptoms,” she said in an interview. “Even without an increased risk of death, there are many problems that affect quality of life and lead to people not being able to do the things they were able to do before.”

Dr. Patil and colleagues analyzed the association of GI symptoms with adverse outcomes in 100,902 patients from the Cerner Real-World Data COVID-19 Database, which included hospital encounters and ED visits for COVID-19 between December 2019 to November 2020; the data were taken from EMRs at centers with which Cerner has a data use agreement. They also looked at factors associated with poor outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator requirement or oxygen dependence.

The average age of the patients was 52, and a higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms were 50 and older. Of those with GI symptoms, 54.5% were women. Overall, patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and have comorbidities such as acute liver failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, GI malignancy, and inflammatory bowel disease.

The research team found that COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29), sepsis (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.36), venous thromboembolism (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.52), and GI bleeding (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79), as compared with COVID-19 patients without GI symptoms (P < .0001 for all comparisons). At the same time, those with GI symptoms were less likely to experience cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; P = .027), respiratory failure (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95; P < .0001), or death (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75; P < .0001).

GI bleed was the most common GI complication, found among 2% of all patients, and was more likely in patients with GI symptoms than in those without (3.5% vs. 1.6%). Intestinal ischemia, pancreatitis, acute liver injury, and intestinal pseudo-obstruction weren’t associated with GI symptoms.

Among the 19,915 patients with GI symptoms, older age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, use of proton pump inhibitors, and use of H₂ receptor antagonists were associated with higher mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator or oxygen requirement. Men with GI symptoms also had a higher risk of mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and sepsis.

In particular, proton pump inhibitor use was associated with more than twice the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-1.66; P < .0001). Similarly, H₂ receptor antagonist use was associated with higher likelihood of death (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.57-2.02), as well as more than three times the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.29-4.28), more than twice the risk of sepsis (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.28-2.73), and nearly twice the risk of ventilator or oxygen dependence (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.30) (P < .0001 for all).

The findings could guide risk stratification, prognosis, and treatment decisions in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms, as well as inform future research focused on risk mitigation and improvement of COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Patil said.

“The protocols for COVID-19 treatment have changed over the past 2 years with blood thinners and steroids,” she said. “Although we likely can’t avoid anti-reflux medicines entirely, it’s something we need to be cognizant of and look out for in our hospitalized patients.”

One study limitation was its inclusion of only inpatient or ED encounters and, therefore, omission of those treated at home; this confers bias toward those with more aggressive disease, according to the authors.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author declared grant support and consultant fees from several companies, including some medical and pharmaceutical companies, which were unrelated to this research. Dr. Patil reported no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 26, 2022.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience gastrointestinal symptoms have overall worse in-hospital complications but less cardiomyopathy and mortality, according to a new study.

About 20% of COVID-19 patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which clinicians should consider when treating their hospitalized patients, wrote researchers led by Nikita Patil, MD, a hospitalist at Nash General Hospital–UNC Nash Healthcare in Rocky Mount, N.C., in Gastro Hep Advances.

“It’s important to know that certain complications are higher in people with GI symptoms,” she said in an interview. “Even without an increased risk of death, there are many problems that affect quality of life and lead to people not being able to do the things they were able to do before.”

Dr. Patil and colleagues analyzed the association of GI symptoms with adverse outcomes in 100,902 patients from the Cerner Real-World Data COVID-19 Database, which included hospital encounters and ED visits for COVID-19 between December 2019 to November 2020; the data were taken from EMRs at centers with which Cerner has a data use agreement. They also looked at factors associated with poor outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator requirement or oxygen dependence.

The average age of the patients was 52, and a higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms were 50 and older. Of those with GI symptoms, 54.5% were women. Overall, patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and have comorbidities such as acute liver failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, GI malignancy, and inflammatory bowel disease.

The research team found that COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29), sepsis (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.36), venous thromboembolism (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.52), and GI bleeding (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79), as compared with COVID-19 patients without GI symptoms (P < .0001 for all comparisons). At the same time, those with GI symptoms were less likely to experience cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; P = .027), respiratory failure (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95; P < .0001), or death (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75; P < .0001).

GI bleed was the most common GI complication, found among 2% of all patients, and was more likely in patients with GI symptoms than in those without (3.5% vs. 1.6%). Intestinal ischemia, pancreatitis, acute liver injury, and intestinal pseudo-obstruction weren’t associated with GI symptoms.

Among the 19,915 patients with GI symptoms, older age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, use of proton pump inhibitors, and use of H₂ receptor antagonists were associated with higher mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator or oxygen requirement. Men with GI symptoms also had a higher risk of mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and sepsis.

In particular, proton pump inhibitor use was associated with more than twice the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-1.66; P < .0001). Similarly, H₂ receptor antagonist use was associated with higher likelihood of death (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.57-2.02), as well as more than three times the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.29-4.28), more than twice the risk of sepsis (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.28-2.73), and nearly twice the risk of ventilator or oxygen dependence (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.30) (P < .0001 for all).

The findings could guide risk stratification, prognosis, and treatment decisions in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms, as well as inform future research focused on risk mitigation and improvement of COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Patil said.

“The protocols for COVID-19 treatment have changed over the past 2 years with blood thinners and steroids,” she said. “Although we likely can’t avoid anti-reflux medicines entirely, it’s something we need to be cognizant of and look out for in our hospitalized patients.”

One study limitation was its inclusion of only inpatient or ED encounters and, therefore, omission of those treated at home; this confers bias toward those with more aggressive disease, according to the authors.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author declared grant support and consultant fees from several companies, including some medical and pharmaceutical companies, which were unrelated to this research. Dr. Patil reported no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 26, 2022.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience gastrointestinal symptoms have overall worse in-hospital complications but less cardiomyopathy and mortality, according to a new study.

About 20% of COVID-19 patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which clinicians should consider when treating their hospitalized patients, wrote researchers led by Nikita Patil, MD, a hospitalist at Nash General Hospital–UNC Nash Healthcare in Rocky Mount, N.C., in Gastro Hep Advances.

“It’s important to know that certain complications are higher in people with GI symptoms,” she said in an interview. “Even without an increased risk of death, there are many problems that affect quality of life and lead to people not being able to do the things they were able to do before.”

Dr. Patil and colleagues analyzed the association of GI symptoms with adverse outcomes in 100,902 patients from the Cerner Real-World Data COVID-19 Database, which included hospital encounters and ED visits for COVID-19 between December 2019 to November 2020; the data were taken from EMRs at centers with which Cerner has a data use agreement. They also looked at factors associated with poor outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator requirement or oxygen dependence.

The average age of the patients was 52, and a higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms were 50 and older. Of those with GI symptoms, 54.5% were women. Overall, patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and have comorbidities such as acute liver failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, GI malignancy, and inflammatory bowel disease.

The research team found that COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29), sepsis (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.36), venous thromboembolism (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.52), and GI bleeding (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79), as compared with COVID-19 patients without GI symptoms (P < .0001 for all comparisons). At the same time, those with GI symptoms were less likely to experience cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; P = .027), respiratory failure (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95; P < .0001), or death (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75; P < .0001).

GI bleed was the most common GI complication, found among 2% of all patients, and was more likely in patients with GI symptoms than in those without (3.5% vs. 1.6%). Intestinal ischemia, pancreatitis, acute liver injury, and intestinal pseudo-obstruction weren’t associated with GI symptoms.

Among the 19,915 patients with GI symptoms, older age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, use of proton pump inhibitors, and use of H₂ receptor antagonists were associated with higher mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator or oxygen requirement. Men with GI symptoms also had a higher risk of mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and sepsis.

In particular, proton pump inhibitor use was associated with more than twice the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-1.66; P < .0001). Similarly, H₂ receptor antagonist use was associated with higher likelihood of death (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.57-2.02), as well as more than three times the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.29-4.28), more than twice the risk of sepsis (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.28-2.73), and nearly twice the risk of ventilator or oxygen dependence (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.30) (P < .0001 for all).

The findings could guide risk stratification, prognosis, and treatment decisions in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms, as well as inform future research focused on risk mitigation and improvement of COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Patil said.

“The protocols for COVID-19 treatment have changed over the past 2 years with blood thinners and steroids,” she said. “Although we likely can’t avoid anti-reflux medicines entirely, it’s something we need to be cognizant of and look out for in our hospitalized patients.”

One study limitation was its inclusion of only inpatient or ED encounters and, therefore, omission of those treated at home; this confers bias toward those with more aggressive disease, according to the authors.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author declared grant support and consultant fees from several companies, including some medical and pharmaceutical companies, which were unrelated to this research. Dr. Patil reported no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 26, 2022.

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

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

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

A national population

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

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

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

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

Reproductive history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A national population

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

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

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

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

Reproductive history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A national population

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

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

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

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

Reproductive history

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

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

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

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