Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

People who received personalized nutrition education in a series of sessions at their regular grocery store significantly improved adherence to a healthy diet, in a new “first-of-its-kind” study in which scientific researchers partnered with a large supermarket company.

In the SuperWIN study, participants were given individualized advice from supermarket-based dietitians using data on their own buying habits recorded on their supermarket loyalty cards. This was associated with an increased adherence to the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which emphasizes vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, sugar, and sodium and has been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

One group of patients also received additional education about healthy eating and meal planning through online technologies, and this group showed even better adherence to the DASH diet.

The study was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology by Dylan Steen, MD, adjunct associate professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati.

“The SuperWIN study provides evidence for the benefit of delivering healthy-eating interventions at modern supermarkets and retail-based clinics,” Dr. Steen said. “It demonstrates the efficacy of dietary interventions harnessing the physical environment of the supermarket, the retail-based dietitians working within the store, and the purchasing data captured on the store’s loyalty cards.”

The study was conducted in partnership with Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the United States, which also operates a large chain of pharmacies and health clinics.

Dr. Steen said the study was addressing one of the biggest public health problems – unhealthy eating – with an innovative approach. “We need to think about how we can extend the reach of modern health care systems into communities and better deliver services right where people are; meet them where they live,” he said at an ACC press conference.

Commenting on the study at the press conference, Eileen Handberg, PhD, professor of medicine at University of Florida, Gainesville, and immediate past chair of the ACC Cardiovascular Care Team Council, said: “I am amazingly excited about this. There is so much potential here. We have never really taken advantage of the current explosion in retail-based health care before.”

Dr. Handberg suggested the study had major implications for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. “Little kids go shopping with their parents, so you have the ability here to change behavior from children on up if you can change the dynamic of the choices they make in the grocery store.”

In his presentation, Dr. Steen noted that, despite many longstanding guidelines on healthy eating, about 75% of Americans still have a poor-quality diet. This trial was conducted to see if a new approach could improve that situation. “If we change the environment in which we deliver dietary education, we can make a difference.”

The SuperWIN trial was conducted in 13 Kroger stores in Ohio and Kentucky. The study enrolled 267 people with at least one cardiovascular risk factor from a primary care network who regularly shopped at one of the study stores. All participants also had to be willing to follow the DASH diet, which was taught at each educational session in the trial.

All participants received one “enhanced” medical nutrition therapy that was guided by the individual’s own dietary intake analytics.

They were then randomly assigned to one of three arms. The control group received no further education. The strategy 1 group received six additional teaching sessions in the supermarket aisles over a 3-month period. Each session was guided by updated individualized purchasing data provided to the dietitian and the participant. 

The strategy 2 group received the same six additional teaching sessions as strategy 1, but they also had some additional teaching on healthy eating and meal planning from a variety of online shopping tools, and nutrition and health care apps.  

“The supermarket analytics were automatically collected so the dietitians could tell what each person liked to eat, how much of each product they were buying and how much they were spending,” Dr. Steen explained.

COVID hit halfway through the trial, and 20 participants were withdrawn for their own safety as they could no longer visit the stores, but the trial continued with the rest of the participants with enhanced safety precautions. The overall analysis cohort was 247 participants.

The average age of the participants was mid-50s, around 70% were female, and most did not have a history of cardiovascular disease.

Eating habits were assessed by three 24-hour dietary recalls assessed at the start of the study and at 3 and 6 months. The DASH score, which is a measure of adherence to the DASH diet, was calculated from this information. The score can range from 0 to 90, with an increased score showing increased adherence.

In one analysis, the researchers compared the DASH scores from the two intervention groups together with the control group, and in a second analysis they compared the scores in the strategy 2 group with those in the strategy 1 group.

Before the pandemic there was “near 100%” attendance for the six visits over the 3-month study period, which Dr. Steen said he thought was “remarkable.” During the pandemic, attendance came down to around 80%.

Results showed that the DASH score increased in all three groups at 3 months, with stepwise increases corresponding to the intensity of the intervention. DASH scores increased by 5.8 points in the control group, by 8.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and by 12.4 points in the strategy 2 group.

DASH scores significantly differed between the two intervention groups and the control group (P = .02). “This shows that purchasing data–guided in-store tours do increase the efficacy of dietary education,” Dr. Steen said.

The difference in scores between the strategy 1 and strategy 2 groups was also significant (P = .01). “This shows online enhancements increase adherence to the DASH diet even further,” Dr. Steen commented

By 6 months, the scores had dropped off a little but were still increased from baseline: by 4.4 points in the control group, 6.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and 8.4 points in the strategy 2 group. “There was again a stepwise increase as the intervention intensified, but there was no longer a significant difference between the interventions and control,” Dr. Steen noted.

Secondary endpoints included blood pressure and body mass index. Systolic blood pressure decreased slightly in all three groups: by 2.8 mm Hg in the control group, 6.6 mm Hg in the strategy 1 group, and 5.7 mm Hg in the strategy 2 group. Body mass index was reduced by 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8, respectively, but the between-group differences were not significant.

Dr. Steen said this is the first study of its kind to date in which scientific researchers collaborated with a large supermarket chain. He explained they also involved a primary care network so that health care utilization information will be available.

“We can the integrate retail-based health care information with traditional health care information. And we can start to look at downstream health care utilization and cost outcomes as well, which will be important as we start to think how to evolve the health care system,” he commented. “The hope is that we can get more scientists working with more retailers to really drive the evidence to shape the evolution of our health care system.”

Challenges ahead

Dr. Handberg pointed out there would be challenges in reaching the underserved population who do not shop at the major supermarkets. “We need to figure out how to get partnerships across the whole spectrum of grocery stores.”

She also noted that 3 months (the duration of the study intervention) was not much time to change the eating habits of a family. “Interventions may have to be a bit more intensive to get the change in blood pressure and weight that we would want to see.”

Dr Handberg hoped the major grocery store companies will see the opportunities in this approach. “Changing behavior is very complicated, and the key will be how to make people stick with the changes. But grocery stores are smart. They have got us going to their pharmacies, so getting us to see a dietitian is not that much of a stretch.”

Moderator of the ACC late-breaker session at which the study was presented, Pamela Morris, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who is also ACC annual scientific session chair, asked whether the approach could be sustained.

“I am thinking back to the barber shop study of blood pressure treatment and to my knowledge those PharmDs are no longer in those barbershops, taking blood pressures, counseling patients, and prescribing antihypertensives. So is Kroger maintaining a long-term commitment to providing this education, or how can this be financed over the long term?” she asked.

Dr. Steen replied that he believed sustainability to be one of the key strengths of this model. “Retail-based health care is exploding in the U.S. The number of retail outlets offering a comprehensive list of services is going up all the time. These programs exist regardless of whether this trial was conducted or not.”

But Dr. Steen stressed that having an evidence base will be critically important.

“Validation is an enormous part of this evolution in retail-based health care – not only to figure out what works but also to engage payors and others in the process of supporting these interventions. I think the sustainability is there – it is sort of baked into the model – but research will be a huge part of cementing this in and helping us to understand what we should do.”

The study was funded by Kroger. Dr. Steen is a consultant for Sanofi and CEO and cofounder of High Enroll.

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

People who received personalized nutrition education in a series of sessions at their regular grocery store significantly improved adherence to a healthy diet, in a new “first-of-its-kind” study in which scientific researchers partnered with a large supermarket company.

In the SuperWIN study, participants were given individualized advice from supermarket-based dietitians using data on their own buying habits recorded on their supermarket loyalty cards. This was associated with an increased adherence to the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which emphasizes vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, sugar, and sodium and has been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

One group of patients also received additional education about healthy eating and meal planning through online technologies, and this group showed even better adherence to the DASH diet.

The study was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology by Dylan Steen, MD, adjunct associate professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati.

“The SuperWIN study provides evidence for the benefit of delivering healthy-eating interventions at modern supermarkets and retail-based clinics,” Dr. Steen said. “It demonstrates the efficacy of dietary interventions harnessing the physical environment of the supermarket, the retail-based dietitians working within the store, and the purchasing data captured on the store’s loyalty cards.”

The study was conducted in partnership with Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the United States, which also operates a large chain of pharmacies and health clinics.

Dr. Steen said the study was addressing one of the biggest public health problems – unhealthy eating – with an innovative approach. “We need to think about how we can extend the reach of modern health care systems into communities and better deliver services right where people are; meet them where they live,” he said at an ACC press conference.

Commenting on the study at the press conference, Eileen Handberg, PhD, professor of medicine at University of Florida, Gainesville, and immediate past chair of the ACC Cardiovascular Care Team Council, said: “I am amazingly excited about this. There is so much potential here. We have never really taken advantage of the current explosion in retail-based health care before.”

Dr. Handberg suggested the study had major implications for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. “Little kids go shopping with their parents, so you have the ability here to change behavior from children on up if you can change the dynamic of the choices they make in the grocery store.”

In his presentation, Dr. Steen noted that, despite many longstanding guidelines on healthy eating, about 75% of Americans still have a poor-quality diet. This trial was conducted to see if a new approach could improve that situation. “If we change the environment in which we deliver dietary education, we can make a difference.”

The SuperWIN trial was conducted in 13 Kroger stores in Ohio and Kentucky. The study enrolled 267 people with at least one cardiovascular risk factor from a primary care network who regularly shopped at one of the study stores. All participants also had to be willing to follow the DASH diet, which was taught at each educational session in the trial.

All participants received one “enhanced” medical nutrition therapy that was guided by the individual’s own dietary intake analytics.

They were then randomly assigned to one of three arms. The control group received no further education. The strategy 1 group received six additional teaching sessions in the supermarket aisles over a 3-month period. Each session was guided by updated individualized purchasing data provided to the dietitian and the participant. 

The strategy 2 group received the same six additional teaching sessions as strategy 1, but they also had some additional teaching on healthy eating and meal planning from a variety of online shopping tools, and nutrition and health care apps.  

“The supermarket analytics were automatically collected so the dietitians could tell what each person liked to eat, how much of each product they were buying and how much they were spending,” Dr. Steen explained.

COVID hit halfway through the trial, and 20 participants were withdrawn for their own safety as they could no longer visit the stores, but the trial continued with the rest of the participants with enhanced safety precautions. The overall analysis cohort was 247 participants.

The average age of the participants was mid-50s, around 70% were female, and most did not have a history of cardiovascular disease.

Eating habits were assessed by three 24-hour dietary recalls assessed at the start of the study and at 3 and 6 months. The DASH score, which is a measure of adherence to the DASH diet, was calculated from this information. The score can range from 0 to 90, with an increased score showing increased adherence.

In one analysis, the researchers compared the DASH scores from the two intervention groups together with the control group, and in a second analysis they compared the scores in the strategy 2 group with those in the strategy 1 group.

Before the pandemic there was “near 100%” attendance for the six visits over the 3-month study period, which Dr. Steen said he thought was “remarkable.” During the pandemic, attendance came down to around 80%.

Results showed that the DASH score increased in all three groups at 3 months, with stepwise increases corresponding to the intensity of the intervention. DASH scores increased by 5.8 points in the control group, by 8.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and by 12.4 points in the strategy 2 group.

DASH scores significantly differed between the two intervention groups and the control group (P = .02). “This shows that purchasing data–guided in-store tours do increase the efficacy of dietary education,” Dr. Steen said.

The difference in scores between the strategy 1 and strategy 2 groups was also significant (P = .01). “This shows online enhancements increase adherence to the DASH diet even further,” Dr. Steen commented

By 6 months, the scores had dropped off a little but were still increased from baseline: by 4.4 points in the control group, 6.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and 8.4 points in the strategy 2 group. “There was again a stepwise increase as the intervention intensified, but there was no longer a significant difference between the interventions and control,” Dr. Steen noted.

Secondary endpoints included blood pressure and body mass index. Systolic blood pressure decreased slightly in all three groups: by 2.8 mm Hg in the control group, 6.6 mm Hg in the strategy 1 group, and 5.7 mm Hg in the strategy 2 group. Body mass index was reduced by 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8, respectively, but the between-group differences were not significant.

Dr. Steen said this is the first study of its kind to date in which scientific researchers collaborated with a large supermarket chain. He explained they also involved a primary care network so that health care utilization information will be available.

“We can the integrate retail-based health care information with traditional health care information. And we can start to look at downstream health care utilization and cost outcomes as well, which will be important as we start to think how to evolve the health care system,” he commented. “The hope is that we can get more scientists working with more retailers to really drive the evidence to shape the evolution of our health care system.”

Challenges ahead

Dr. Handberg pointed out there would be challenges in reaching the underserved population who do not shop at the major supermarkets. “We need to figure out how to get partnerships across the whole spectrum of grocery stores.”

She also noted that 3 months (the duration of the study intervention) was not much time to change the eating habits of a family. “Interventions may have to be a bit more intensive to get the change in blood pressure and weight that we would want to see.”

Dr Handberg hoped the major grocery store companies will see the opportunities in this approach. “Changing behavior is very complicated, and the key will be how to make people stick with the changes. But grocery stores are smart. They have got us going to their pharmacies, so getting us to see a dietitian is not that much of a stretch.”

Moderator of the ACC late-breaker session at which the study was presented, Pamela Morris, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who is also ACC annual scientific session chair, asked whether the approach could be sustained.

“I am thinking back to the barber shop study of blood pressure treatment and to my knowledge those PharmDs are no longer in those barbershops, taking blood pressures, counseling patients, and prescribing antihypertensives. So is Kroger maintaining a long-term commitment to providing this education, or how can this be financed over the long term?” she asked.

Dr. Steen replied that he believed sustainability to be one of the key strengths of this model. “Retail-based health care is exploding in the U.S. The number of retail outlets offering a comprehensive list of services is going up all the time. These programs exist regardless of whether this trial was conducted or not.”

But Dr. Steen stressed that having an evidence base will be critically important.

“Validation is an enormous part of this evolution in retail-based health care – not only to figure out what works but also to engage payors and others in the process of supporting these interventions. I think the sustainability is there – it is sort of baked into the model – but research will be a huge part of cementing this in and helping us to understand what we should do.”

The study was funded by Kroger. Dr. Steen is a consultant for Sanofi and CEO and cofounder of High Enroll.

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

People who received personalized nutrition education in a series of sessions at their regular grocery store significantly improved adherence to a healthy diet, in a new “first-of-its-kind” study in which scientific researchers partnered with a large supermarket company.

In the SuperWIN study, participants were given individualized advice from supermarket-based dietitians using data on their own buying habits recorded on their supermarket loyalty cards. This was associated with an increased adherence to the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which emphasizes vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, sugar, and sodium and has been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

One group of patients also received additional education about healthy eating and meal planning through online technologies, and this group showed even better adherence to the DASH diet.

The study was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology by Dylan Steen, MD, adjunct associate professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati.

“The SuperWIN study provides evidence for the benefit of delivering healthy-eating interventions at modern supermarkets and retail-based clinics,” Dr. Steen said. “It demonstrates the efficacy of dietary interventions harnessing the physical environment of the supermarket, the retail-based dietitians working within the store, and the purchasing data captured on the store’s loyalty cards.”

The study was conducted in partnership with Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the United States, which also operates a large chain of pharmacies and health clinics.

Dr. Steen said the study was addressing one of the biggest public health problems – unhealthy eating – with an innovative approach. “We need to think about how we can extend the reach of modern health care systems into communities and better deliver services right where people are; meet them where they live,” he said at an ACC press conference.

Commenting on the study at the press conference, Eileen Handberg, PhD, professor of medicine at University of Florida, Gainesville, and immediate past chair of the ACC Cardiovascular Care Team Council, said: “I am amazingly excited about this. There is so much potential here. We have never really taken advantage of the current explosion in retail-based health care before.”

Dr. Handberg suggested the study had major implications for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. “Little kids go shopping with their parents, so you have the ability here to change behavior from children on up if you can change the dynamic of the choices they make in the grocery store.”

In his presentation, Dr. Steen noted that, despite many longstanding guidelines on healthy eating, about 75% of Americans still have a poor-quality diet. This trial was conducted to see if a new approach could improve that situation. “If we change the environment in which we deliver dietary education, we can make a difference.”

The SuperWIN trial was conducted in 13 Kroger stores in Ohio and Kentucky. The study enrolled 267 people with at least one cardiovascular risk factor from a primary care network who regularly shopped at one of the study stores. All participants also had to be willing to follow the DASH diet, which was taught at each educational session in the trial.

All participants received one “enhanced” medical nutrition therapy that was guided by the individual’s own dietary intake analytics.

They were then randomly assigned to one of three arms. The control group received no further education. The strategy 1 group received six additional teaching sessions in the supermarket aisles over a 3-month period. Each session was guided by updated individualized purchasing data provided to the dietitian and the participant. 

The strategy 2 group received the same six additional teaching sessions as strategy 1, but they also had some additional teaching on healthy eating and meal planning from a variety of online shopping tools, and nutrition and health care apps.  

“The supermarket analytics were automatically collected so the dietitians could tell what each person liked to eat, how much of each product they were buying and how much they were spending,” Dr. Steen explained.

COVID hit halfway through the trial, and 20 participants were withdrawn for their own safety as they could no longer visit the stores, but the trial continued with the rest of the participants with enhanced safety precautions. The overall analysis cohort was 247 participants.

The average age of the participants was mid-50s, around 70% were female, and most did not have a history of cardiovascular disease.

Eating habits were assessed by three 24-hour dietary recalls assessed at the start of the study and at 3 and 6 months. The DASH score, which is a measure of adherence to the DASH diet, was calculated from this information. The score can range from 0 to 90, with an increased score showing increased adherence.

In one analysis, the researchers compared the DASH scores from the two intervention groups together with the control group, and in a second analysis they compared the scores in the strategy 2 group with those in the strategy 1 group.

Before the pandemic there was “near 100%” attendance for the six visits over the 3-month study period, which Dr. Steen said he thought was “remarkable.” During the pandemic, attendance came down to around 80%.

Results showed that the DASH score increased in all three groups at 3 months, with stepwise increases corresponding to the intensity of the intervention. DASH scores increased by 5.8 points in the control group, by 8.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and by 12.4 points in the strategy 2 group.

DASH scores significantly differed between the two intervention groups and the control group (P = .02). “This shows that purchasing data–guided in-store tours do increase the efficacy of dietary education,” Dr. Steen said.

The difference in scores between the strategy 1 and strategy 2 groups was also significant (P = .01). “This shows online enhancements increase adherence to the DASH diet even further,” Dr. Steen commented

By 6 months, the scores had dropped off a little but were still increased from baseline: by 4.4 points in the control group, 6.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and 8.4 points in the strategy 2 group. “There was again a stepwise increase as the intervention intensified, but there was no longer a significant difference between the interventions and control,” Dr. Steen noted.

Secondary endpoints included blood pressure and body mass index. Systolic blood pressure decreased slightly in all three groups: by 2.8 mm Hg in the control group, 6.6 mm Hg in the strategy 1 group, and 5.7 mm Hg in the strategy 2 group. Body mass index was reduced by 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8, respectively, but the between-group differences were not significant.

Dr. Steen said this is the first study of its kind to date in which scientific researchers collaborated with a large supermarket chain. He explained they also involved a primary care network so that health care utilization information will be available.

“We can the integrate retail-based health care information with traditional health care information. And we can start to look at downstream health care utilization and cost outcomes as well, which will be important as we start to think how to evolve the health care system,” he commented. “The hope is that we can get more scientists working with more retailers to really drive the evidence to shape the evolution of our health care system.”

Challenges ahead

Dr. Handberg pointed out there would be challenges in reaching the underserved population who do not shop at the major supermarkets. “We need to figure out how to get partnerships across the whole spectrum of grocery stores.”

She also noted that 3 months (the duration of the study intervention) was not much time to change the eating habits of a family. “Interventions may have to be a bit more intensive to get the change in blood pressure and weight that we would want to see.”

Dr Handberg hoped the major grocery store companies will see the opportunities in this approach. “Changing behavior is very complicated, and the key will be how to make people stick with the changes. But grocery stores are smart. They have got us going to their pharmacies, so getting us to see a dietitian is not that much of a stretch.”

Moderator of the ACC late-breaker session at which the study was presented, Pamela Morris, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who is also ACC annual scientific session chair, asked whether the approach could be sustained.

“I am thinking back to the barber shop study of blood pressure treatment and to my knowledge those PharmDs are no longer in those barbershops, taking blood pressures, counseling patients, and prescribing antihypertensives. So is Kroger maintaining a long-term commitment to providing this education, or how can this be financed over the long term?” she asked.

Dr. Steen replied that he believed sustainability to be one of the key strengths of this model. “Retail-based health care is exploding in the U.S. The number of retail outlets offering a comprehensive list of services is going up all the time. These programs exist regardless of whether this trial was conducted or not.”

But Dr. Steen stressed that having an evidence base will be critically important.

“Validation is an enormous part of this evolution in retail-based health care – not only to figure out what works but also to engage payors and others in the process of supporting these interventions. I think the sustainability is there – it is sort of baked into the model – but research will be a huge part of cementing this in and helping us to understand what we should do.”

The study was funded by Kroger. Dr. Steen is a consultant for Sanofi and CEO and cofounder of High Enroll.

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

A new subanalysis of the FAME 3 trial, which failed to show that percutaneous intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is noninferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, has associated PCI with early quality of life (QOL) advantages, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Despite a modestly greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the end of 12 months’ follow-up among those treated with FFR-guided PCI, the greater QOL early after the procedure might be relevant to patients weighing these options, according to Frederik M. Zimmerman, MD, of Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

“FFR-guided PCI results in a faster improvement in quality of life than CABG during the first year after revascularization, and it improved working status in patients younger than 65 years of age,” Dr. Zimmermann said.

The primary results of FAME 3 were presented at the 2021 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting by lead author William F. Fearon, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rather than confirming the hypothesis that FFR-guided PCI is comparable with CABG for the primary composite MACE outcome death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization, the incidence of MACE at 12 months was 10.6% in those randomized to PCI and 6.9% in the group assigned to CABG.

This translated into a hazard ratio for MACE of 1.5, signifying a 50% increase in risk for FFR-guided PCI relative to CABG for the primary outcome, a difference that negated the study definition of noninferiority (P = .35).

In this new health-related subanalysis, which was published simultaneously with his ACC presentation, the groups were compared over 12 months for QOL as measured with European Quality of Life–5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale, angina as measured with the Canadian Cardiovascular Classification (CCC) system, and employment.

Outcomes data available in >85% of patients

Of the 1,500 patients enrolled and randomized in FAME 3 (757 to FFR-guided PCI and 743 to CABG), this health outcomes subanalysis was performed with complete data at 12 months from 89% of those in the PCI group and 88% of those in the CABG group.

Ultimately, the study did not show differences in any of these measures at the end of 12 months, but there were significant differences in QOL and employment at earlier time points. In particular, the significantly different (P < .001) trajectory for QOL improvement at 1 and 6 months favored FFR-guided PCI whether evaluated with the EQ-5D instrument or an EQ visual analog scale.

Rates of angina defined by as CCC class of at least 2 were low after revascularization in both arms of the study, negating any opportunity for differences, but patients aged younger than 65 years were almost twice as likely to have returned to full- or part-time work 1 month after revascularization (60.2% vs. 33.1%), and they remained at higher odds for working at 12 months (68.1% vs. 57.4%).

In patients aged older than 65 years, return-to-work rates did not differ significantly at any time point.

These results suggest potentially clinically meaningful early advantages for FFR-guided PCI, but some experts questioned the rationale for reporting positive secondary findings from a negative trial.

“This subanalysis is curious,” said Allen Jeremias, MD, director of interventional cardiology research, Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, N.Y. He pointed out that reporting these data is an anomaly.
 

Subanalyses uncommon in negative trials

“CABG was found to be better, so why look at QOL,” said Dr. Jeremias, who was an ACC-invited expert to discuss the results. However, he went on to say, “this could be an exception to the rule.”

The reason, according to Dr. Jeremias, is that the absolute difference at 12 months between FFR-guided PCI and CABG for the MACE events of greatest concern – death, MI, or stroke – was only about 2% greater in the FFR-guided PCI group (7.3% vs. 5.2%). The biggest contributor to the difference in MACE in FAME 3 at 12 months was the higher rate of repeat revascularization (5.9% vs. 3.9%).

Moreover, patients randomized to FFR-guided PCI had lower rates of many adverse events. This included risk of bleeding (1.6% vs. 3.8%; P = .009 as defined by type ≥3 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , acute kidney injury (0.1% vs. 0.9%; P = .04), atrial fibrillation (2.4% vs. 14.1%; P < .001) and rehospitalization within 30 days (5.5% vs. 10.2%; P < .001).

In the context of a modest increase in risk of MACE and the lower rate of several important treatment-related adverse events, the QOL advantages identified in this subanalysis “might be a reasonable topic for patient-shared decision-making,” Dr. Jeremias suggested.
 

New data might inform patient decision-making

He granted the possibility that well-informed patients might accept the modestly increased risk of MACE for one or more of the outcomes, such as a higher likelihood of an early return to work, that favored FFR-guided PCI.

This is the point of this subanalysis, agreed Dr. Zimmermann.

“It is all about shared decision-making,” he said. Also emphasizing that the negative trial endpoint of FAME 3 “was driven largely by an increased risk of revascularization,” he believes that these new data might be a basis for discussions with patients weighing relative risks and benefits.

There are more data to come, according to Dr. Zimmermann, who said that follow-up of up to 5 years is planned. The 3-year data will be made available in 2023.

Dr. Zimmermann reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jeremias reported financial relationships with Abbott, ACIST, Boston Scientific, and Volcano. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic.

A new subanalysis of the FAME 3 trial, which failed to show that percutaneous intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is noninferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, has associated PCI with early quality of life (QOL) advantages, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Despite a modestly greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the end of 12 months’ follow-up among those treated with FFR-guided PCI, the greater QOL early after the procedure might be relevant to patients weighing these options, according to Frederik M. Zimmerman, MD, of Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

“FFR-guided PCI results in a faster improvement in quality of life than CABG during the first year after revascularization, and it improved working status in patients younger than 65 years of age,” Dr. Zimmermann said.

The primary results of FAME 3 were presented at the 2021 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting by lead author William F. Fearon, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rather than confirming the hypothesis that FFR-guided PCI is comparable with CABG for the primary composite MACE outcome death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization, the incidence of MACE at 12 months was 10.6% in those randomized to PCI and 6.9% in the group assigned to CABG.

This translated into a hazard ratio for MACE of 1.5, signifying a 50% increase in risk for FFR-guided PCI relative to CABG for the primary outcome, a difference that negated the study definition of noninferiority (P = .35).

In this new health-related subanalysis, which was published simultaneously with his ACC presentation, the groups were compared over 12 months for QOL as measured with European Quality of Life–5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale, angina as measured with the Canadian Cardiovascular Classification (CCC) system, and employment.

Outcomes data available in >85% of patients

Of the 1,500 patients enrolled and randomized in FAME 3 (757 to FFR-guided PCI and 743 to CABG), this health outcomes subanalysis was performed with complete data at 12 months from 89% of those in the PCI group and 88% of those in the CABG group.

Ultimately, the study did not show differences in any of these measures at the end of 12 months, but there were significant differences in QOL and employment at earlier time points. In particular, the significantly different (P < .001) trajectory for QOL improvement at 1 and 6 months favored FFR-guided PCI whether evaluated with the EQ-5D instrument or an EQ visual analog scale.

Rates of angina defined by as CCC class of at least 2 were low after revascularization in both arms of the study, negating any opportunity for differences, but patients aged younger than 65 years were almost twice as likely to have returned to full- or part-time work 1 month after revascularization (60.2% vs. 33.1%), and they remained at higher odds for working at 12 months (68.1% vs. 57.4%).

In patients aged older than 65 years, return-to-work rates did not differ significantly at any time point.

These results suggest potentially clinically meaningful early advantages for FFR-guided PCI, but some experts questioned the rationale for reporting positive secondary findings from a negative trial.

“This subanalysis is curious,” said Allen Jeremias, MD, director of interventional cardiology research, Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, N.Y. He pointed out that reporting these data is an anomaly.
 

Subanalyses uncommon in negative trials

“CABG was found to be better, so why look at QOL,” said Dr. Jeremias, who was an ACC-invited expert to discuss the results. However, he went on to say, “this could be an exception to the rule.”

The reason, according to Dr. Jeremias, is that the absolute difference at 12 months between FFR-guided PCI and CABG for the MACE events of greatest concern – death, MI, or stroke – was only about 2% greater in the FFR-guided PCI group (7.3% vs. 5.2%). The biggest contributor to the difference in MACE in FAME 3 at 12 months was the higher rate of repeat revascularization (5.9% vs. 3.9%).

Moreover, patients randomized to FFR-guided PCI had lower rates of many adverse events. This included risk of bleeding (1.6% vs. 3.8%; P = .009 as defined by type ≥3 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , acute kidney injury (0.1% vs. 0.9%; P = .04), atrial fibrillation (2.4% vs. 14.1%; P < .001) and rehospitalization within 30 days (5.5% vs. 10.2%; P < .001).

In the context of a modest increase in risk of MACE and the lower rate of several important treatment-related adverse events, the QOL advantages identified in this subanalysis “might be a reasonable topic for patient-shared decision-making,” Dr. Jeremias suggested.
 

New data might inform patient decision-making

He granted the possibility that well-informed patients might accept the modestly increased risk of MACE for one or more of the outcomes, such as a higher likelihood of an early return to work, that favored FFR-guided PCI.

This is the point of this subanalysis, agreed Dr. Zimmermann.

“It is all about shared decision-making,” he said. Also emphasizing that the negative trial endpoint of FAME 3 “was driven largely by an increased risk of revascularization,” he believes that these new data might be a basis for discussions with patients weighing relative risks and benefits.

There are more data to come, according to Dr. Zimmermann, who said that follow-up of up to 5 years is planned. The 3-year data will be made available in 2023.

Dr. Zimmermann reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jeremias reported financial relationships with Abbott, ACIST, Boston Scientific, and Volcano. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic.

A new subanalysis of the FAME 3 trial, which failed to show that percutaneous intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is noninferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treating three-vessel coronary artery disease, has associated PCI with early quality of life (QOL) advantages, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Despite a modestly greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at the end of 12 months’ follow-up among those treated with FFR-guided PCI, the greater QOL early after the procedure might be relevant to patients weighing these options, according to Frederik M. Zimmerman, MD, of Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

“FFR-guided PCI results in a faster improvement in quality of life than CABG during the first year after revascularization, and it improved working status in patients younger than 65 years of age,” Dr. Zimmermann said.

The primary results of FAME 3 were presented at the 2021 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting by lead author William F. Fearon, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rather than confirming the hypothesis that FFR-guided PCI is comparable with CABG for the primary composite MACE outcome death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization, the incidence of MACE at 12 months was 10.6% in those randomized to PCI and 6.9% in the group assigned to CABG.

This translated into a hazard ratio for MACE of 1.5, signifying a 50% increase in risk for FFR-guided PCI relative to CABG for the primary outcome, a difference that negated the study definition of noninferiority (P = .35).

In this new health-related subanalysis, which was published simultaneously with his ACC presentation, the groups were compared over 12 months for QOL as measured with European Quality of Life–5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale, angina as measured with the Canadian Cardiovascular Classification (CCC) system, and employment.

Outcomes data available in >85% of patients

Of the 1,500 patients enrolled and randomized in FAME 3 (757 to FFR-guided PCI and 743 to CABG), this health outcomes subanalysis was performed with complete data at 12 months from 89% of those in the PCI group and 88% of those in the CABG group.

Ultimately, the study did not show differences in any of these measures at the end of 12 months, but there were significant differences in QOL and employment at earlier time points. In particular, the significantly different (P < .001) trajectory for QOL improvement at 1 and 6 months favored FFR-guided PCI whether evaluated with the EQ-5D instrument or an EQ visual analog scale.

Rates of angina defined by as CCC class of at least 2 were low after revascularization in both arms of the study, negating any opportunity for differences, but patients aged younger than 65 years were almost twice as likely to have returned to full- or part-time work 1 month after revascularization (60.2% vs. 33.1%), and they remained at higher odds for working at 12 months (68.1% vs. 57.4%).

In patients aged older than 65 years, return-to-work rates did not differ significantly at any time point.

These results suggest potentially clinically meaningful early advantages for FFR-guided PCI, but some experts questioned the rationale for reporting positive secondary findings from a negative trial.

“This subanalysis is curious,” said Allen Jeremias, MD, director of interventional cardiology research, Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, N.Y. He pointed out that reporting these data is an anomaly.
 

Subanalyses uncommon in negative trials

“CABG was found to be better, so why look at QOL,” said Dr. Jeremias, who was an ACC-invited expert to discuss the results. However, he went on to say, “this could be an exception to the rule.”

The reason, according to Dr. Jeremias, is that the absolute difference at 12 months between FFR-guided PCI and CABG for the MACE events of greatest concern – death, MI, or stroke – was only about 2% greater in the FFR-guided PCI group (7.3% vs. 5.2%). The biggest contributor to the difference in MACE in FAME 3 at 12 months was the higher rate of repeat revascularization (5.9% vs. 3.9%).

Moreover, patients randomized to FFR-guided PCI had lower rates of many adverse events. This included risk of bleeding (1.6% vs. 3.8%; P = .009 as defined by type ≥3 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , acute kidney injury (0.1% vs. 0.9%; P = .04), atrial fibrillation (2.4% vs. 14.1%; P < .001) and rehospitalization within 30 days (5.5% vs. 10.2%; P < .001).

In the context of a modest increase in risk of MACE and the lower rate of several important treatment-related adverse events, the QOL advantages identified in this subanalysis “might be a reasonable topic for patient-shared decision-making,” Dr. Jeremias suggested.
 

New data might inform patient decision-making

He granted the possibility that well-informed patients might accept the modestly increased risk of MACE for one or more of the outcomes, such as a higher likelihood of an early return to work, that favored FFR-guided PCI.

This is the point of this subanalysis, agreed Dr. Zimmermann.

“It is all about shared decision-making,” he said. Also emphasizing that the negative trial endpoint of FAME 3 “was driven largely by an increased risk of revascularization,” he believes that these new data might be a basis for discussions with patients weighing relative risks and benefits.

There are more data to come, according to Dr. Zimmermann, who said that follow-up of up to 5 years is planned. The 3-year data will be made available in 2023.

Dr. Zimmermann reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Jeremias reported financial relationships with Abbott, ACIST, Boston Scientific, and Volcano. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

WASHINGTON – Results from new analyses further fleshed out the potent effect by the investigational SGLT1&2 inhibitor sotagliflozin on major cardiovascular adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and at high risk for cardiovascular disease in the SCORED trial that randomized more than 10,000 patients.

In prespecified, secondary analyses of the SCORED results, treatment with sotagliflozin during a median of 16 months was linked to a significant 21% risk reduction relative to placebo for the combined incidence of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included cardiovascular death, first and recurrent episodes of nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke among the 5,144 randomized patients who entered the trial with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among the 5,440 patients in the study who did not have a history of CVD (although they did have at least one major risk factor or at least two minor risk factors), treatment with sotagliflozin was linked to a significant 26% relative risk reduction in total MACE events.

Part of these overall MACE benefits resulted from similar improvements from sotagliflozin treatment on the individual outcomes of total nonfatal MI and total nonfatal strokes. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut these MIs by a significant 31% in patients with a history of CVD relative to patients who received placebo, and by a relative 34% in those without a CVD event in their history, a difference compared with placebo that fell short of significance, said Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, both in Boston.

Treatment with sotagliflozin also cut total nonfatal strokes by 31% relative to placebo in patients with a history of CVD, and by a relative 38% in those without a CVD history. Both differences fell short of significance.
 

An early MACE benefit and a stroke benefit

“This stroke benefit has not been clearly seen” with any agent from the closely related sodium-glucose cotransport-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, and “the MACE benefit appeared very early,” within 3 months from the start of sotagliflozin treatment, “which may be because of the SGLT1 inhibition,” Dr. Bhatt said during his report.

The SGLT1 receptor is the primary mechanism cells in the gut use to absorb glucose and galactose in the human gastrointestinal tract, Dr. Bhatt explained, while the SGLT2 receptor appears on kidney cells and is the major player in the reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor class includes the agents canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), while sotagliflozin inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2.

Main results from SCORED appeared in a report first released in late 2020, and showed that for the study’s primary endpoint treatment with sotagliflozin linked with a significant 26% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Patient follow-up in SCORED was not as long as originally planned when the study stopped early due to a loss of funding from a sponsor that was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

MACE results ‘heterogeneous’ from SGLT2 inhibitors

Sotagliflozin and agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “have been consistent” in their benefits for reducing cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but for MACE, the results from the SGLT2 inhibitors “have been more heterogeneous,” and the effect of sotagliflozin on MACE “were different in SCORED,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved with this work.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results suggest a benefit [from sotagliflozin] on atherosclerotic events, which could be a potential advantage” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, “but the heterogeneity of this effect” among these agents means that more confirmatory data are needed for sotagliflozin, Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for the concept” of combined inhibition of the SGLT1 and 2 receptors, and if more evidence for unique benefits of this effect accumulate “it may lead to increased enthusiasm for sotagliflozin,” she said. “A lot will also depend on pricing decisions” for sotagliflozin, if it receives U.S. marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Decisions about which agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to prescribe “are often being made based on price right now,” Dr. O’Donoghue said.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company developing sotagliflozin, has announced plans to resubmit its new drug application for sotagliflozin to the FDA later in 2022, with the agency’s approval decision likely occurring late in 2022 or sometime during 2023. In February, the company withdrew its December 2021 application to correct a “technical issue” it had found.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Bhatt used combined data from SCORED as well as several additional randomized trials of sotagliflozin involving a total of more than 20,000 patients that showed a significant 21% reduction in the incidence of MACE compared with placebo.

During his talk, Dr. Bhatt said that sotagliflozin was potentially superior to the agents that inhibit only SGLT2. In an interview, he based this tentative assessment on at least four attributes of sotagliflozin that have emerged from trial results:

• The drug’s ability to significantly reduce MACE and to have this effect apparent within a few months of treatment onset;
• The significantly reduced rate of stroke with sotagliflozin (when patients are not subdivided into those with or without a history of CVD) that has not yet been seen with any SGLT2 inhibitor;
• The ability of sotagliflozin to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes even when their estimated glomerular filtration rate is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², an effect not seen with SGLT2 inhibitors and possibly explained by sotagliflozin having an effect on gut absorption of glucose in addition to its SGLT2 inhibitory effect in the kidney;
• And the proven ability of sotagliflozin to be safe and effective when initiated in patients hospitalized for heart failure, a property that so far has only also been shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in the EMPULSE trial (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28: 568-74).

SCORED was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the companies originally developing sotagliflozin, although with the withdrawal of Sanofi’s support, further development is now sponsored entirely by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt received research funding from Sanofi and Lexicon that was paid to Brigham and Women’s Health, and he has been an advisor to numerous companies. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Amgen, AZ MedImmune, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis.
 

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with even mild hypertension should receive blood pressure–lowering medications to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes for the mother and the child, according to a large, open-label, randomized trial.

“Treating to the blood pressure goal in this study reduced the risk of adverse events associated with pregnancy but did not impair fetal growth,” Alan T. Tita, MD, PhD, associate dean for Global and Women’s Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The question of whether to treat chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been “an international controversy for decades,” said Dr. Tita, who led the investigator-initiated Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial.

For the composite primary outcome of severe preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, the treatment of hypertension versus no treatment showed a relative risk reduction of 18% (30.2% vs. 37%, (hazard ratio, 0.82; P < .001).
 

Small for gestational age is primary safety endpoint

An increase in preeclampsia risk in women whose fetus was small for gestational age (SGA), a theoretical consequence of reductions in arterial pressure, was not seen. The rate of SGA, defined as below the 10^th percentile, was slightly higher in the treatment group (11.2% vs. 10.4%), but the difference did not approach significance (P = 0.76).

By answering this long-pending question, the CHAP data are “practice changing,” declared an ACC-invited commentator, Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology and director of the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, R.I. She agreed that the need for treatment of mild chronic hypertension has been a dilemma for clinicians that is now acceptably resolved.

In this trial, 2,408 pregnant women with chronic mild hypertension defined as a blood pressure of 160/90 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with a goal blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg or no treatment unless the blood pressure rose to at least 160/105. All women had singleton pregnancies. Enrollment before 23 weeks of gestation was required. Severe hypertension (at least 160/105 mm Hg) was an exclusion criterion, as were several comorbidities, such as kidney disease.
 

Combination therapy accepted for <140/90 mm Hg goal

The beta-blocker labetalol or the calcium channel blocker nifedipine as single agents were the preferred antihypertensive medications in the protocol, but other medications were permitted. To reach the blood pressure goal, the single-agent therapy was titrated to the maximum dose before starting a second agent.

After randomization the systolic and diastolic blood pressures fell in both groups, but they fell more and remained consistently lower in the active treatment group, particularly during the first 20 weeks after randomization, according to graphs displayed by Dr. Tita. Over the course of the study, the mean diastolic blood pressures were 129.5 and 132.6 mm Hg in the active treatment and control groups, respectively, while the systolic pressures were 79.1 vs. 81.5 mm Hg.

When the components of the primary outcome were evaluated separately, the greatest advantage of treatment was the reduction in the rate of severe eclampsia (23.3% vs. 29.1%; HR, 0.80: 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.92) and preterm birth (12.2% vs. 16.7%; HR, 0.73: 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

Across a large array of subgroups, including those with or without diabetes and those treated before or after 14 weeks of gestation, there was a consistent advantage for treatment, even if not statistically different. It is notable that 48% of patients were Black and 35% had a body mass index of at least 40. The active treatment was favored across all groups stratified by these characteristics.

Although the incidences of placental abruption (1.7% on treatment vs. 1.9% without) and fetal or neonatal death (3.5% vs. 4.3%) were lower in the active treatment group, they were uncommon events in both arms of the study. The differences did not reach statistical significance.
 

Maternal morbidity rates lower on treatment

Severe SGA, which was defined as below the 5^th percentile, was also numerically but not significantly higher in the control arm than in the group receiving treatment (5.1% vs. 5.5%), but the incidence of composite adverse maternal events was numerically lower (2.1% vs. 2.8%). The incidences of all components of maternal morbidity, such as maternal death (0.1% vs. 0.2%) pulmonary edema (0.4% vs. 0.9%), heart failure (0.1% vs. 0.1%), and acute kidney injury (0.8% vs. 1.2%), were either lower or the same on active treatment versus no treatment.

According to Dr. Tita, who called CHAP one of the largest and most diverse studies to address the value of treating mild hypertension in pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is evaluating these data for changing their current guidelines for managing hypertension during pregnancy.

“The rate of chronic hypertension during pregnancy has been rising in the United States due to the increase in the average age of pregnant women and the rising rates of obesity,” Dr. Tita commented.

“We definitely needed these data,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director, Ascension Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Research Institute, Indianapolis. Not only has the value of treating mild hypertension been unresolved, but Dr. Walsh pointed out that the rates of maternal mortality in the United States are rising and now generally exceed those of many other developed countries.

There are several features in the design of this trial that make the results even more salient to clinical practice, according to Dr. Walsh. This includes the fact that about half of patients enrolled were on Medicaid. As a result, the study confirmed benefit in what Dr. Walsh characterized as a “vulnerable” population.

“We will be busy now to make sure that our [pregnant] patients are achieving these target blood pressures,” Dr. Walsh said. She indicated that CHAP validates the treatment target of 140/90 mm Hg as a standard of care.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with its ACC presentation.

The trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Tita reports research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Walsh reports a financial relationship with EBR Systems. Dr. Poppas reports no potential conflicts of interest.

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

A low-sodium diet was not associated with a reduction in future clinical events in a new study in ambulatory patients with heart failure. But there was a moderate benefit on quality of life and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

“The guidelines used to strongly recommend a reduction in sodium intake in heart failure patients, but this advice has backed off in recent years because of the lack of data. Most heart failure guidelines now do not make any recommendations on dietary sodium,” he said.

SODIUM-HF was a pragmatic, multinational, open-label, randomized trial conducted in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand), which included 809 patients (median age, 67 years) with chronic heart failure (NYHA functional class II–III) who were receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. They were randomly assigned to usual care according to local guidelines or a low-sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (<1,500 mg/day). Patients with a baseline sodium intake of less than 1,500 mg/day were excluded.

In the intervention group, patients were asked to follow low-sodium menus developed by dietitians localized to each region. They also received behavioral counseling by trained dietitians or physicians or nurses.

Dietary sodium intake was assessed by using a 3-day food record (including 1 weekend day) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months in both groups and, for the intervention group, also at 3 and 9 months to monitor and support dietary adherence.

Dr. Ezekowitz explained that although the best method for measuring sodium levels would normally be a 24-hour urine sodium, this would be impractical in a large clinical trial. In addition, he pointed out that urinary sodium is not an accurate measure of actual sodium levels in patients taking diuretics, so it is not a good measure to use in a heart failure population.

“The food record method of assessing sodium levels has been well validated; I think we measured it as accurately as we could have done,” he added.

Results showed that between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2,286 mg/day to 1,658 mg/day in the low-sodium group and from 2,119 mg/day to 2,073 mg/day in the usual care group. The median difference between groups was 415 mg/day at 12 months.

By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome (hospitalization or emergency department visits due to cardiovascular causes or all-cause death) had occurred in 15% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 17% of those in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.63 - 1.26]; P = .53).

All-cause death occurred in 6% of patients in the low-sodium diet group and 4% of those in the usual care group (HR, 1.38; P = .32). Cardiovascular-related hospitalization occurred in 10% of the low-sodium group and 12% of the usual care group (HR, 0.82; P = .36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 4% of both groups (HR, 1.21; P = .60).

The absence of treatment effect for the primary outcome was consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including those with higher vs lower baseline sodium intake. But there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in the primary outcome in individuals younger than age 65 years than in those age 65 years and older.

Quality-of-life measures on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) suggested a benefit in the low-sodium group, with mean between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months of 3.38 points in the overall summary score, 3.29 points in the clinical summary score, and 3.77 points in the physical limitation score (all differences were statistically significant).

There was no significant difference in 6-minute-walk distance at 12 months between the low-sodium diet group and the usual care group.

NYHA functional class at 12 months differed significantly between groups; the low-sodium diet group had a greater likelihood of improving by one NYHA class than the usual care group (odds ratio, 0.59; P = .0061).

No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group.

Dr. Ezekowitz said that to investigate whether longer follow-up may show a difference in events, further analyses are planned at 2 years and 5 years.

Questions on food recall and blinding

Commenting on the findings at the late-breaking clinical trials session at the ACC meeting, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, congratulated Dr. Ezekowitz on conducting this trial.

“We have been chasing the holy grail of sodium reduction in heart failure for a very long time, so I have to commend you and your team for taking on this challenge, especially during the pandemic,” she said.

But Dr. Bozkurt questioned whether the intervention group actually had a meaningful sodium reduction given that this was measured by food recall and this may have been accounted for by under-reporting of certain food intakes.

Dr. Ezekowitz responded that patients acted as their own controls in that calorie intake, fluid intake, and weight were also assessed and did not change. “So I think we did have a meaningful reduction in sodium,” he said.

Dr. Bozkurt also queried whether the improvements in quality of life and functional status were reliable given that this was an unblinded study.

To this point, Dr. Ezekowitz pointed out that the KCCQ quality-of-life measure was a highly validated instrument and that improvements were seen in these measures at 3, 6, and 12 months. “It is not like these were spurious findings, so I think we have to look at this as a real result,” he argued.

Commenting on the study at an ACC press conference, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, said the trial had answered two important questions: that sodium reduction in heart failure may not reduce heart failure hospitalization/death but that patients feel better.

“I think we can safely tell patients that if they slip up a bit they may not end up in hospital,” she added.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Ezekowitz reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier.

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