Acute Coronary Syndromes

As coprescribing drugs for erectile dysfunction and oral organic nitrates for ischemic heart disease (IHD) surged, cardiovascular adverse events did not significantly increase, a new study finds.

The authors of the new research specifically examined how frequently phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, such as Viagra, were prescribed. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have warned that these drugs for erectile dysfunction are contraindicated for use with nitrates because of concerns about cardiovascular risks.

“Small, randomized, pharmacologic studies have reported an amplified decrease in blood pressure during controlled coexposure with nitrates and [phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors], both in healthy participants and in participants with IHD,” wrote lead author Anders Holt, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and colleagues, in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Potentially, this increases the risk for vascular ischemic events including myocardial infarction and stroke.”

But there is a scarcity of real-world data showing that using both types of drugs together increase these risks, the researchers noted.

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Holt and colleagues conducted a retrospective study involving 249,541 Danish men with IHD. In this overall population, from 2000 to 2018, prescriptions for PDE5 inhibitors increased 10-fold, from 3.1 to 30.9 prescriptions per 100 persons per year. Within a subgroup of 42,073 patients continuously prescribed oral organic nitrates, PDE5-inhibitor prescriptions jumped twice that magnitude, from 0.9 to 19.7 prescriptions per 100 persons per year.

Despite this surge in coprescribing, the investigators did not observe a significant increase in either of two composite measures of cardiovascular adverse events. The first composite included ischemic stroke, shock, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, or acute coronary arteriography (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.13). The second composite included drug-related adverse events, angina pectoris, or syncope (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.40-1.32).
 

Lead author speculates on reasons for findings

“I propose several explanations [for these findings],” Dr. Holt said in an interview, “but I want to emphasize that our study does not contain any data to back it up. It is just speculation. First, the observed drop in blood pressure may not cause a condition for which patients seek a hospital. A drop in blood pressure has been shown in pharmacologic trials, but it might not translate to a real-life risk for cardiovascular outcomes. Second, patients could be well informed and adherent to guidance that the prescribing physician has provided. For example, patients are aware of the recommended pause in nitrate treatment before PDE5-inhibitor use and follow these recommendations. Third, nitrates are often taken in the morning, and with the careful assumption that most PDE5-inhibitor activities take place in the evening, the nitrates could be metabolized to a degree such that the synergistic interaction is negligible.”

Dr. Holt went on to suggest a novel clinical approach based on the new findings.

“Coadministration should still be contraindicated due to the proven drop in blood pressure,” he said. “However, perhaps physicians can allow for coprescription if patients are adequately informed.”

A qualitative study is needed to determine how patients and physicians discuss coprescription, including avoidance of coadministration, Dr. Holt added.
 

Findings call for a reassessment of whether the contraindication is warranted

Robert A. Kloner, MD, PhD, chief science officer at the Huntington Medical Research Institutes in Pasadena, Calif., and professor of medicine at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, previously conducted research exploring drug interactions with PDE5 inhibitors, and in 2018, coauthored a literature review that concluded that PDE5 inhibitors and nitrates are contraindicated.

But now, considering these new findings, Dr. Kloner is offering a fresh perspective.

“This study is reassuring,” Dr. Kloner said in an interview. “I think that it’s time to reassess whether there should be an absolute contraindication, or this should be more of like a warning.”

He noted that in controlled studies, like the ones he previously conducted, PDE5 inhibitors and nitrates were administered “very close to each other, on purpose,” yet this probably doesn’t reflect typical practice, in which clinicians can guide usage based on durations of drug metabolism.

“I think that physicians might be more comfortable now prescribing the drugs at the same time, but then telling patients that they shouldn’t take the two drugs simultaneously; they should wait and take the nitrate 24 hours after the last Viagra, or the nitrate 48 hours after the last Cialis,” Dr. Kloner said. “I suspect that that is happening. I suspect also the fact that people would be more likely to take the nitrate in the morning and the PDE5 inhibitor at night probably also contributes to the safety findings.”

Dr. Kloner noted that blood pressures vary throughout the day based on circadian rhythm, and that the body can adapt to some fluctuations without negative effects.

There could still be some people who experience a drop in blood pressure and get sick from it from the two drugs interacting, but that’s probably not that common, he said.

The study was supported by several grants. The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, BMS, Bayer, and others. Dr. Kloner consults for Sanofi.

As coprescribing drugs for erectile dysfunction and oral organic nitrates for ischemic heart disease (IHD) surged, cardiovascular adverse events did not significantly increase, a new study finds.

The authors of the new research specifically examined how frequently phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, such as Viagra, were prescribed. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have warned that these drugs for erectile dysfunction are contraindicated for use with nitrates because of concerns about cardiovascular risks.

“Small, randomized, pharmacologic studies have reported an amplified decrease in blood pressure during controlled coexposure with nitrates and [phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors], both in healthy participants and in participants with IHD,” wrote lead author Anders Holt, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and colleagues, in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Potentially, this increases the risk for vascular ischemic events including myocardial infarction and stroke.”

But there is a scarcity of real-world data showing that using both types of drugs together increase these risks, the researchers noted.

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Holt and colleagues conducted a retrospective study involving 249,541 Danish men with IHD. In this overall population, from 2000 to 2018, prescriptions for PDE5 inhibitors increased 10-fold, from 3.1 to 30.9 prescriptions per 100 persons per year. Within a subgroup of 42,073 patients continuously prescribed oral organic nitrates, PDE5-inhibitor prescriptions jumped twice that magnitude, from 0.9 to 19.7 prescriptions per 100 persons per year.

Despite this surge in coprescribing, the investigators did not observe a significant increase in either of two composite measures of cardiovascular adverse events. The first composite included ischemic stroke, shock, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, or acute coronary arteriography (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.13). The second composite included drug-related adverse events, angina pectoris, or syncope (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.40-1.32).
 

Lead author speculates on reasons for findings

“I propose several explanations [for these findings],” Dr. Holt said in an interview, “but I want to emphasize that our study does not contain any data to back it up. It is just speculation. First, the observed drop in blood pressure may not cause a condition for which patients seek a hospital. A drop in blood pressure has been shown in pharmacologic trials, but it might not translate to a real-life risk for cardiovascular outcomes. Second, patients could be well informed and adherent to guidance that the prescribing physician has provided. For example, patients are aware of the recommended pause in nitrate treatment before PDE5-inhibitor use and follow these recommendations. Third, nitrates are often taken in the morning, and with the careful assumption that most PDE5-inhibitor activities take place in the evening, the nitrates could be metabolized to a degree such that the synergistic interaction is negligible.”

Dr. Holt went on to suggest a novel clinical approach based on the new findings.

“Coadministration should still be contraindicated due to the proven drop in blood pressure,” he said. “However, perhaps physicians can allow for coprescription if patients are adequately informed.”

A qualitative study is needed to determine how patients and physicians discuss coprescription, including avoidance of coadministration, Dr. Holt added.
 

Findings call for a reassessment of whether the contraindication is warranted

Robert A. Kloner, MD, PhD, chief science officer at the Huntington Medical Research Institutes in Pasadena, Calif., and professor of medicine at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, previously conducted research exploring drug interactions with PDE5 inhibitors, and in 2018, coauthored a literature review that concluded that PDE5 inhibitors and nitrates are contraindicated.

But now, considering these new findings, Dr. Kloner is offering a fresh perspective.

“This study is reassuring,” Dr. Kloner said in an interview. “I think that it’s time to reassess whether there should be an absolute contraindication, or this should be more of like a warning.”

He noted that in controlled studies, like the ones he previously conducted, PDE5 inhibitors and nitrates were administered “very close to each other, on purpose,” yet this probably doesn’t reflect typical practice, in which clinicians can guide usage based on durations of drug metabolism.

“I think that physicians might be more comfortable now prescribing the drugs at the same time, but then telling patients that they shouldn’t take the two drugs simultaneously; they should wait and take the nitrate 24 hours after the last Viagra, or the nitrate 48 hours after the last Cialis,” Dr. Kloner said. “I suspect that that is happening. I suspect also the fact that people would be more likely to take the nitrate in the morning and the PDE5 inhibitor at night probably also contributes to the safety findings.”

Dr. Kloner noted that blood pressures vary throughout the day based on circadian rhythm, and that the body can adapt to some fluctuations without negative effects.

There could still be some people who experience a drop in blood pressure and get sick from it from the two drugs interacting, but that’s probably not that common, he said.

The study was supported by several grants. The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, BMS, Bayer, and others. Dr. Kloner consults for Sanofi.

As coprescribing drugs for erectile dysfunction and oral organic nitrates for ischemic heart disease (IHD) surged, cardiovascular adverse events did not significantly increase, a new study finds.

The authors of the new research specifically examined how frequently phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, such as Viagra, were prescribed. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have warned that these drugs for erectile dysfunction are contraindicated for use with nitrates because of concerns about cardiovascular risks.

“Small, randomized, pharmacologic studies have reported an amplified decrease in blood pressure during controlled coexposure with nitrates and [phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors], both in healthy participants and in participants with IHD,” wrote lead author Anders Holt, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and colleagues, in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Potentially, this increases the risk for vascular ischemic events including myocardial infarction and stroke.”

But there is a scarcity of real-world data showing that using both types of drugs together increase these risks, the researchers noted.

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Holt and colleagues conducted a retrospective study involving 249,541 Danish men with IHD. In this overall population, from 2000 to 2018, prescriptions for PDE5 inhibitors increased 10-fold, from 3.1 to 30.9 prescriptions per 100 persons per year. Within a subgroup of 42,073 patients continuously prescribed oral organic nitrates, PDE5-inhibitor prescriptions jumped twice that magnitude, from 0.9 to 19.7 prescriptions per 100 persons per year.

Despite this surge in coprescribing, the investigators did not observe a significant increase in either of two composite measures of cardiovascular adverse events. The first composite included ischemic stroke, shock, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, or acute coronary arteriography (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.13). The second composite included drug-related adverse events, angina pectoris, or syncope (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.40-1.32).
 

Lead author speculates on reasons for findings

“I propose several explanations [for these findings],” Dr. Holt said in an interview, “but I want to emphasize that our study does not contain any data to back it up. It is just speculation. First, the observed drop in blood pressure may not cause a condition for which patients seek a hospital. A drop in blood pressure has been shown in pharmacologic trials, but it might not translate to a real-life risk for cardiovascular outcomes. Second, patients could be well informed and adherent to guidance that the prescribing physician has provided. For example, patients are aware of the recommended pause in nitrate treatment before PDE5-inhibitor use and follow these recommendations. Third, nitrates are often taken in the morning, and with the careful assumption that most PDE5-inhibitor activities take place in the evening, the nitrates could be metabolized to a degree such that the synergistic interaction is negligible.”

Dr. Holt went on to suggest a novel clinical approach based on the new findings.

“Coadministration should still be contraindicated due to the proven drop in blood pressure,” he said. “However, perhaps physicians can allow for coprescription if patients are adequately informed.”

A qualitative study is needed to determine how patients and physicians discuss coprescription, including avoidance of coadministration, Dr. Holt added.
 

Findings call for a reassessment of whether the contraindication is warranted

Robert A. Kloner, MD, PhD, chief science officer at the Huntington Medical Research Institutes in Pasadena, Calif., and professor of medicine at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, previously conducted research exploring drug interactions with PDE5 inhibitors, and in 2018, coauthored a literature review that concluded that PDE5 inhibitors and nitrates are contraindicated.

But now, considering these new findings, Dr. Kloner is offering a fresh perspective.

“This study is reassuring,” Dr. Kloner said in an interview. “I think that it’s time to reassess whether there should be an absolute contraindication, or this should be more of like a warning.”

He noted that in controlled studies, like the ones he previously conducted, PDE5 inhibitors and nitrates were administered “very close to each other, on purpose,” yet this probably doesn’t reflect typical practice, in which clinicians can guide usage based on durations of drug metabolism.

“I think that physicians might be more comfortable now prescribing the drugs at the same time, but then telling patients that they shouldn’t take the two drugs simultaneously; they should wait and take the nitrate 24 hours after the last Viagra, or the nitrate 48 hours after the last Cialis,” Dr. Kloner said. “I suspect that that is happening. I suspect also the fact that people would be more likely to take the nitrate in the morning and the PDE5 inhibitor at night probably also contributes to the safety findings.”

Dr. Kloner noted that blood pressures vary throughout the day based on circadian rhythm, and that the body can adapt to some fluctuations without negative effects.

There could still be some people who experience a drop in blood pressure and get sick from it from the two drugs interacting, but that’s probably not that common, he said.

The study was supported by several grants. The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, BMS, Bayer, and others. Dr. Kloner consults for Sanofi.

Bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries with obesity, a large new observational study in which a third of the patients were over age 65 years suggests.

Overall, patients who underwent bariatric surgery had 37% lower all-cause mortality and were significantly less likely to have admissions for new-onset heart failure (64% risk reduction), myocardial infarction (37% risk reduction), and ischemic stroke (29% risk reduction), compared with similar patients who received more conservative treatment, after a median of 4 years of follow-up, report Amgad Mentias, MD, MS, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, and colleagues.

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous studies on bariatric surgery outcomes have primarily focused on individuals from select health care networks or medical facilities with restricted coverage in the United States or on patients with diabetes, noted Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Contemporary cohort of patients

“A lot of the studies showed long-term outcomes outside of the U.S., specifically in Europe,” Dr. Mentias added.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term association between bariatric surgery and risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a contemporary large cohort from the United States.

Older patients (> 65 years) and those without diabetes were looked at as specific subgroups.

The researchers assessed 189,770 patients. There were 94,885 matched patients in each cohort. Mean age was 62.33 years. Female patients comprised 70% of the cohort. The study group had an average BMI of 44.7 kg/m2.

The study cohort was matched 1:1. Participants were either part of a control group with obesity or a group of Medicare beneficiaries who had bariatric surgery between 2013 and 2019. Sex, propensity score matching on 87 clinical variables, age, and BMI were used to match patients.

Myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality were all study outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, the study team conducted an instrumental variable assessment.

More specifically, the findings showed that bariatric surgery was linked with the following after a median follow-up of 4.0 years:

• Myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.68)
• Stroke (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79)
• New-onset heart failure (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.44-0.49)
• Reduced risk of death (9.2 vs. 14.7 per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66)

Findings for those over the age of 65 were similar – lower risks of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.64), new-onset heart failure (HR, 0.52), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.70), and stroke (HR, 0.76; all P < .001). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analyses in men and women and in patients with and without diabetes.

The study cohort primarily consisted of Medicare patients, which limits the generalizability of the data. Lack of data on medications taken for cardiovascular and weight loss purposes and potential coding errors because the information was gathered from an administrative database were all limitations of the study, the researchers note.

An additional limitation was that residual unmeasured confounders, particularly patient-focused physical, social, and mental support factors, could play a role in whether a patient opted to have bariatric surgery, the study authors note.

“Additional studies are needed to compare cardiovascular outcomes after bariatric surgery with weight loss medications like glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues,” the researchers add.

This study was partially funded by philanthropic contributions by the Khouri family, Bailey family, and Haslam family to the Cleveland Clinic for co-author Dr. Milind Y. Desai’s research. Dr. Mentias has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Powell-Wiley disclosed relationships with the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Division of Intramural Research of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries with obesity, a large new observational study in which a third of the patients were over age 65 years suggests.

Overall, patients who underwent bariatric surgery had 37% lower all-cause mortality and were significantly less likely to have admissions for new-onset heart failure (64% risk reduction), myocardial infarction (37% risk reduction), and ischemic stroke (29% risk reduction), compared with similar patients who received more conservative treatment, after a median of 4 years of follow-up, report Amgad Mentias, MD, MS, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, and colleagues.

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous studies on bariatric surgery outcomes have primarily focused on individuals from select health care networks or medical facilities with restricted coverage in the United States or on patients with diabetes, noted Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Contemporary cohort of patients

“A lot of the studies showed long-term outcomes outside of the U.S., specifically in Europe,” Dr. Mentias added.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term association between bariatric surgery and risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a contemporary large cohort from the United States.

Older patients (> 65 years) and those without diabetes were looked at as specific subgroups.

The researchers assessed 189,770 patients. There were 94,885 matched patients in each cohort. Mean age was 62.33 years. Female patients comprised 70% of the cohort. The study group had an average BMI of 44.7 kg/m2.

The study cohort was matched 1:1. Participants were either part of a control group with obesity or a group of Medicare beneficiaries who had bariatric surgery between 2013 and 2019. Sex, propensity score matching on 87 clinical variables, age, and BMI were used to match patients.

Myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality were all study outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, the study team conducted an instrumental variable assessment.

More specifically, the findings showed that bariatric surgery was linked with the following after a median follow-up of 4.0 years:

• Myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.68)
• Stroke (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79)
• New-onset heart failure (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.44-0.49)
• Reduced risk of death (9.2 vs. 14.7 per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66)

Findings for those over the age of 65 were similar – lower risks of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.64), new-onset heart failure (HR, 0.52), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.70), and stroke (HR, 0.76; all P < .001). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analyses in men and women and in patients with and without diabetes.

The study cohort primarily consisted of Medicare patients, which limits the generalizability of the data. Lack of data on medications taken for cardiovascular and weight loss purposes and potential coding errors because the information was gathered from an administrative database were all limitations of the study, the researchers note.

An additional limitation was that residual unmeasured confounders, particularly patient-focused physical, social, and mental support factors, could play a role in whether a patient opted to have bariatric surgery, the study authors note.

“Additional studies are needed to compare cardiovascular outcomes after bariatric surgery with weight loss medications like glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues,” the researchers add.

This study was partially funded by philanthropic contributions by the Khouri family, Bailey family, and Haslam family to the Cleveland Clinic for co-author Dr. Milind Y. Desai’s research. Dr. Mentias has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Powell-Wiley disclosed relationships with the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Division of Intramural Research of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries with obesity, a large new observational study in which a third of the patients were over age 65 years suggests.

Overall, patients who underwent bariatric surgery had 37% lower all-cause mortality and were significantly less likely to have admissions for new-onset heart failure (64% risk reduction), myocardial infarction (37% risk reduction), and ischemic stroke (29% risk reduction), compared with similar patients who received more conservative treatment, after a median of 4 years of follow-up, report Amgad Mentias, MD, MS, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, and colleagues.

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous studies on bariatric surgery outcomes have primarily focused on individuals from select health care networks or medical facilities with restricted coverage in the United States or on patients with diabetes, noted Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Contemporary cohort of patients

“A lot of the studies showed long-term outcomes outside of the U.S., specifically in Europe,” Dr. Mentias added.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term association between bariatric surgery and risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a contemporary large cohort from the United States.

Older patients (> 65 years) and those without diabetes were looked at as specific subgroups.

The researchers assessed 189,770 patients. There were 94,885 matched patients in each cohort. Mean age was 62.33 years. Female patients comprised 70% of the cohort. The study group had an average BMI of 44.7 kg/m2.

The study cohort was matched 1:1. Participants were either part of a control group with obesity or a group of Medicare beneficiaries who had bariatric surgery between 2013 and 2019. Sex, propensity score matching on 87 clinical variables, age, and BMI were used to match patients.

Myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality were all study outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, the study team conducted an instrumental variable assessment.

More specifically, the findings showed that bariatric surgery was linked with the following after a median follow-up of 4.0 years:

• Myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.68)
• Stroke (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79)
• New-onset heart failure (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.44-0.49)
• Reduced risk of death (9.2 vs. 14.7 per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66)

Findings for those over the age of 65 were similar – lower risks of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.64), new-onset heart failure (HR, 0.52), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.70), and stroke (HR, 0.76; all P < .001). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analyses in men and women and in patients with and without diabetes.

The study cohort primarily consisted of Medicare patients, which limits the generalizability of the data. Lack of data on medications taken for cardiovascular and weight loss purposes and potential coding errors because the information was gathered from an administrative database were all limitations of the study, the researchers note.

An additional limitation was that residual unmeasured confounders, particularly patient-focused physical, social, and mental support factors, could play a role in whether a patient opted to have bariatric surgery, the study authors note.

“Additional studies are needed to compare cardiovascular outcomes after bariatric surgery with weight loss medications like glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues,” the researchers add.

This study was partially funded by philanthropic contributions by the Khouri family, Bailey family, and Haslam family to the Cleveland Clinic for co-author Dr. Milind Y. Desai’s research. Dr. Mentias has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Powell-Wiley disclosed relationships with the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Division of Intramural Research of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

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

The addition of aspirin to standard guideline management for blood pressure did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events among adults with hypertension and controlled systolic blood pressure in a study.

The benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been questioned in light of data showing neutral outcomes in low-risk patients and concerns about increased bleeding risk and mortality in healthy older adults, wrote Rita Del Pinto, MD, of University of L’Aquila (Italy) and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, Dr. Del Pinto and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from more than 2,500 participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized trial conducted from 2010 to 2013.

The goal of SPRINT was to compare intensive and standard blood pressure–lowering strategies for hypertension patients. The primary outcome of the current study was risk of a first cardiovascular event, which included adjudicated myocardial infarction, non–myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome, stroke, acute heart failure, and CVD death.“There has been considerable improvement in the management of cardiovascular risk factors since the first reports on aspirin use for cardiovascular prevention,” Dr. Del Pinto said in an interview.

“As for hypertension, not only have more effective antihypertensive medications become available, but also evidence has recently emerged in support of a downwards redefinition of blood pressure targets during treatment,” she said. “In this context, in an era when great attention is paid to the personalization of treatment, no specific studies had addressed the association of aspirin use as a primary prevention strategy in a cohort of relatively old, high-risk individuals with treated systolic blood pressure steadily below the recommended target,” she added.

The researchers assessed whether aspirin use in addition to standard blood pressure management (a target of less than 140 mm Hg) decreased risk and improved survival.

The study population included 2,664 adult patients; 29.3% were women, and 24.5% were aged 75 years and older. Half of the patients (1,332) received aspirin and 1,332 did not.

In a multivariate analysis, 42 cardiovascular events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 20 events in those not exposed to aspirin (hazard ratio, 2.30). The findings were consistent in subgroup analyses of younger individuals, current and former smokers, and patients on statins.

An additional subgroup analysis of individuals randomized to standard care or intensive care in the SPRINT study showed no significant difference in primary outcome rates between individuals who received aspirin and those who did not. The rates for aspirin use vs. non–aspirin use were 5.85% vs. 3.60% in the standard treatment group and 4.66% vs. 2.56% in the intensive treatment group.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the post hoc design, short follow-up period, and lack of data on the initiation of aspirin and bleeding events, the researchers wrote. However, the results suggest that modern management of hypertension may have redefined the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with hypertension, they concluded.

Findings confirm value of preventive care

“The study was conducted as a post-hoc analysis on an experimental cohort, which must be considered when interpreting the results,” Dr. Del Pinto said.

Despite the limitations, the study findings affirm that effective treatment of major cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, with proven drugs is “a mainstay of the primary prevention of ASCVD,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “Testing our findings in a dedicated setting with sufficiently long follow-up, where aspirin dose and indication, as well as any possible bleeding event, are reported could expand the clinical meaning of our observations,” said Dr. Del Pinto. “Also, the clinical impact of aspirin, even in combination with novel cardiovascular drugs such as direct oral anticoagulants, in populations exposed to combinations of risk factors, deserves further investigation.”

Data support shared decision-making

“While recent evidence has not shown a benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of ASCVD in several populations, the subpopulation of patients with hypertension as an ASCVD risk factor is also of interest to the clinician,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The lack of benefit of aspirin in this study, despite its limitations, was surprising, and I would be eager to see how the role of aspirin in ASCVD prevention would continue to evolve in conjunction with improvement in other therapies for modification of risk factors.”

“The decision to continue aspirin in this subgroup of patients should warrant a discussion with patients and a reexamination of risks and benefits until further data are available,” Dr. Pal emphasized. 

Larger studies with long-term follow-ups would be required to further clarify the role of aspirin in primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with hypertension without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, he added.

Data were supplied courtesy of BioLINCC. The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The addition of aspirin to standard guideline management for blood pressure did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events among adults with hypertension and controlled systolic blood pressure in a study.

The benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been questioned in light of data showing neutral outcomes in low-risk patients and concerns about increased bleeding risk and mortality in healthy older adults, wrote Rita Del Pinto, MD, of University of L’Aquila (Italy) and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, Dr. Del Pinto and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from more than 2,500 participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized trial conducted from 2010 to 2013.

The goal of SPRINT was to compare intensive and standard blood pressure–lowering strategies for hypertension patients. The primary outcome of the current study was risk of a first cardiovascular event, which included adjudicated myocardial infarction, non–myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome, stroke, acute heart failure, and CVD death.“There has been considerable improvement in the management of cardiovascular risk factors since the first reports on aspirin use for cardiovascular prevention,” Dr. Del Pinto said in an interview.

“As for hypertension, not only have more effective antihypertensive medications become available, but also evidence has recently emerged in support of a downwards redefinition of blood pressure targets during treatment,” she said. “In this context, in an era when great attention is paid to the personalization of treatment, no specific studies had addressed the association of aspirin use as a primary prevention strategy in a cohort of relatively old, high-risk individuals with treated systolic blood pressure steadily below the recommended target,” she added.

The researchers assessed whether aspirin use in addition to standard blood pressure management (a target of less than 140 mm Hg) decreased risk and improved survival.

The study population included 2,664 adult patients; 29.3% were women, and 24.5% were aged 75 years and older. Half of the patients (1,332) received aspirin and 1,332 did not.

In a multivariate analysis, 42 cardiovascular events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 20 events in those not exposed to aspirin (hazard ratio, 2.30). The findings were consistent in subgroup analyses of younger individuals, current and former smokers, and patients on statins.

An additional subgroup analysis of individuals randomized to standard care or intensive care in the SPRINT study showed no significant difference in primary outcome rates between individuals who received aspirin and those who did not. The rates for aspirin use vs. non–aspirin use were 5.85% vs. 3.60% in the standard treatment group and 4.66% vs. 2.56% in the intensive treatment group.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the post hoc design, short follow-up period, and lack of data on the initiation of aspirin and bleeding events, the researchers wrote. However, the results suggest that modern management of hypertension may have redefined the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with hypertension, they concluded.

Findings confirm value of preventive care

“The study was conducted as a post-hoc analysis on an experimental cohort, which must be considered when interpreting the results,” Dr. Del Pinto said.

Despite the limitations, the study findings affirm that effective treatment of major cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, with proven drugs is “a mainstay of the primary prevention of ASCVD,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “Testing our findings in a dedicated setting with sufficiently long follow-up, where aspirin dose and indication, as well as any possible bleeding event, are reported could expand the clinical meaning of our observations,” said Dr. Del Pinto. “Also, the clinical impact of aspirin, even in combination with novel cardiovascular drugs such as direct oral anticoagulants, in populations exposed to combinations of risk factors, deserves further investigation.”

Data support shared decision-making

“While recent evidence has not shown a benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of ASCVD in several populations, the subpopulation of patients with hypertension as an ASCVD risk factor is also of interest to the clinician,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The lack of benefit of aspirin in this study, despite its limitations, was surprising, and I would be eager to see how the role of aspirin in ASCVD prevention would continue to evolve in conjunction with improvement in other therapies for modification of risk factors.”

“The decision to continue aspirin in this subgroup of patients should warrant a discussion with patients and a reexamination of risks and benefits until further data are available,” Dr. Pal emphasized. 

Larger studies with long-term follow-ups would be required to further clarify the role of aspirin in primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with hypertension without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, he added.

Data were supplied courtesy of BioLINCC. The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The addition of aspirin to standard guideline management for blood pressure did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events among adults with hypertension and controlled systolic blood pressure in a study.

The benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been questioned in light of data showing neutral outcomes in low-risk patients and concerns about increased bleeding risk and mortality in healthy older adults, wrote Rita Del Pinto, MD, of University of L’Aquila (Italy) and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, Dr. Del Pinto and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of data from more than 2,500 participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized trial conducted from 2010 to 2013.

The goal of SPRINT was to compare intensive and standard blood pressure–lowering strategies for hypertension patients. The primary outcome of the current study was risk of a first cardiovascular event, which included adjudicated myocardial infarction, non–myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome, stroke, acute heart failure, and CVD death.“There has been considerable improvement in the management of cardiovascular risk factors since the first reports on aspirin use for cardiovascular prevention,” Dr. Del Pinto said in an interview.

“As for hypertension, not only have more effective antihypertensive medications become available, but also evidence has recently emerged in support of a downwards redefinition of blood pressure targets during treatment,” she said. “In this context, in an era when great attention is paid to the personalization of treatment, no specific studies had addressed the association of aspirin use as a primary prevention strategy in a cohort of relatively old, high-risk individuals with treated systolic blood pressure steadily below the recommended target,” she added.

The researchers assessed whether aspirin use in addition to standard blood pressure management (a target of less than 140 mm Hg) decreased risk and improved survival.

The study population included 2,664 adult patients; 29.3% were women, and 24.5% were aged 75 years and older. Half of the patients (1,332) received aspirin and 1,332 did not.

In a multivariate analysis, 42 cardiovascular events occurred in the aspirin group, compared with 20 events in those not exposed to aspirin (hazard ratio, 2.30). The findings were consistent in subgroup analyses of younger individuals, current and former smokers, and patients on statins.

An additional subgroup analysis of individuals randomized to standard care or intensive care in the SPRINT study showed no significant difference in primary outcome rates between individuals who received aspirin and those who did not. The rates for aspirin use vs. non–aspirin use were 5.85% vs. 3.60% in the standard treatment group and 4.66% vs. 2.56% in the intensive treatment group.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the post hoc design, short follow-up period, and lack of data on the initiation of aspirin and bleeding events, the researchers wrote. However, the results suggest that modern management of hypertension may have redefined the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with hypertension, they concluded.

Findings confirm value of preventive care

“The study was conducted as a post-hoc analysis on an experimental cohort, which must be considered when interpreting the results,” Dr. Del Pinto said.

Despite the limitations, the study findings affirm that effective treatment of major cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, with proven drugs is “a mainstay of the primary prevention of ASCVD,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “Testing our findings in a dedicated setting with sufficiently long follow-up, where aspirin dose and indication, as well as any possible bleeding event, are reported could expand the clinical meaning of our observations,” said Dr. Del Pinto. “Also, the clinical impact of aspirin, even in combination with novel cardiovascular drugs such as direct oral anticoagulants, in populations exposed to combinations of risk factors, deserves further investigation.”

Data support shared decision-making

“While recent evidence has not shown a benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of ASCVD in several populations, the subpopulation of patients with hypertension as an ASCVD risk factor is also of interest to the clinician,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The lack of benefit of aspirin in this study, despite its limitations, was surprising, and I would be eager to see how the role of aspirin in ASCVD prevention would continue to evolve in conjunction with improvement in other therapies for modification of risk factors.”

“The decision to continue aspirin in this subgroup of patients should warrant a discussion with patients and a reexamination of risks and benefits until further data are available,” Dr. Pal emphasized. 

Larger studies with long-term follow-ups would be required to further clarify the role of aspirin in primary prevention of ASCVD in patients with hypertension without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, he added.

Data were supplied courtesy of BioLINCC. The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON – Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor and a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist had a significant 80% cut in their rate of all-cause death during 1-year follow-up, compared with matched patients treated with an agent from either class alone in an observational, retrospective study of more than 15,000 people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system.

For the study’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, combined treatment with both an agent from the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class and from the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class linked with a significant, roughly 50% cut in events during 1-year follow-up, compared with patients treated with an agent from just one of these two classes, Persio D. Lopez, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This improvement in the combined endpoint outcome resulted entirely from reduced all-cause mortality. Dual treatment showed no significant association with the incidence of nonfatal MIs or strokes, compared with monotherapy, with rates that were nearly identical regardless of whether patients took one of the agents or both, said Dr. Lopez, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center, both in New York.
 

Combining classes for hard-to-control diabetes

“We’re not sure what drives combined use” of agents from both drug classes in these types of patients, admitted Dr. Lopez during his talk. “Our hypothesis is that dual treatment is used in patients with harder-to-control diabetes.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, who practices in the VA system but was not involved with the study, agreed that this is the likely explanation for most instances of high-risk VA patients with diabetes who receive agents from both classes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I have a few patients” on both classes, usually “patients with higher starting A1c levels who need greater glycemic control,” said Dr. Virani, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.

U.S. use of either drug class, let alone both, in patients with type 2 diabetes is still struggling to gain traction in U.S. practice and remains limited to a minority of these patients, a prescribing pattern reflected in recent VA data. Analysis of more than half a million patients in the VA system with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who received treatment at any of 130 VA medical centers throughout 2020 showed that 11% had received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 8% a GLP-1 RA.

The most frequently used antidiabetes drug classes in these patients were insulin in 36%, biguanides in 47%, and sulfonylureas in 22%.

These data also showed a striking level of variability among the 130 VA centers, with some of the sites prescribing either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 RA to as few as about 3% each of these patients, while other centers had a roughly 10-fold higher prescription rate for each of about 25%-30% of their patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD.

Despite the overall modest level of use of both classes in these types of patients as recently as 2020, no barriers exist at the VA to prescribing an agent from one or both classes “if you provide a good reason” for a patient to receive the drugs, Dr. Virani said in an interview. He also predicted that use of both classes in these patients, including combination treatment, will likely soon expand.
 

‘A lot of interest’ in combining an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA

“There will be a lot of interest in combing the two classes. It makes intuitive sense [to treat with both classes] because most patients with diabetes need more than one drug” for glycemic control, he noted. “Why not use two classes that each reduce a patient’s risk” for adverse outcomes involving ASCVD, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, added Dr. Virani.

The study run by Dr. Lopez and his associates used data collected in the National VA Database and included 121,156 patients with both type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Using propensity-score matching the researchers compiled three subgroups that each included 5,277 matched patients. One subgroup had patients prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, a second subgroup included patients on a GLP-1 RA, and a third subgroup had patients on agents from both classes. Patient matching relied on age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, hemoglobin A1c level, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.

Patients included in the analysis averaged about 67 years of age; 97% were men, their average body mass index was about 34 kg/m², their average A1c was about 7.9%, their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55-66 mL/min per 1.73 m², and their average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 55%. The database provided a median follow-up of 902 days (about 2.5 years). The prespecified primary endpoint focused on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up, but the investigators also ran a 3-year follow-up analysis on a post hoc basis.

The most common SGLT2 inhibitor received by these patients was empagliflozin (Jardiance), used on virtually everyone who received an agent from this class. In contrast, the GLP-1 RA drugs that patients received split more widely. The most prescribed agent was liraglutide (Victoza), followed by semaglutide (Ozempic), and dulaglutide (Trulicity), with fewer than 5% receiving exenatide (Bydureon, Byetta).

Regarding other treatments, about 97% of all patients received a statin, about 94% were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, about 90% were on metformin, and roughly 75% were on insulin, aspirin, and a beta-blocker, with smaller numbers on other types of agents.

For the study’s primary endpoint, the 1-year incidence of combined ASCVD events including all-cause death, patients on agents from both classes had a significant 46% reduced rate compared with those on an SGLT2 inhibitor only, and a significant 49% reduced rate, compared with those on a GLP-1 RA only. These between-group separations broadened slightly during 3-year follow-up. Dr. Lopez did not report results of a direct comparison between patients on just an SGLT2 inhibitor and those on just a GLP-1 RA.

For the endpoint of all-cause death, those on combined treatment had a 1-year rate that was 83% below the rate among patients on only an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 81% below the rate among patients who received a GLP-1 RA but not the other class.

Dr. Lopez cautioned that selection bias could have influenced the outcomes of patients who received both classes rather than one or the other, and he also highlighted that the analysis relied on administrative data rather than information gleaned from more detailed medical records or prospectively collected findings and was limited by only including a very small number of women.

“Our results need to be validated in prospective studies,” he declared.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Virani had no commercial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor and a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist had a significant 80% cut in their rate of all-cause death during 1-year follow-up, compared with matched patients treated with an agent from either class alone in an observational, retrospective study of more than 15,000 people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system.

For the study’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, combined treatment with both an agent from the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class and from the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class linked with a significant, roughly 50% cut in events during 1-year follow-up, compared with patients treated with an agent from just one of these two classes, Persio D. Lopez, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This improvement in the combined endpoint outcome resulted entirely from reduced all-cause mortality. Dual treatment showed no significant association with the incidence of nonfatal MIs or strokes, compared with monotherapy, with rates that were nearly identical regardless of whether patients took one of the agents or both, said Dr. Lopez, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center, both in New York.
 

Combining classes for hard-to-control diabetes

“We’re not sure what drives combined use” of agents from both drug classes in these types of patients, admitted Dr. Lopez during his talk. “Our hypothesis is that dual treatment is used in patients with harder-to-control diabetes.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, who practices in the VA system but was not involved with the study, agreed that this is the likely explanation for most instances of high-risk VA patients with diabetes who receive agents from both classes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I have a few patients” on both classes, usually “patients with higher starting A1c levels who need greater glycemic control,” said Dr. Virani, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.

U.S. use of either drug class, let alone both, in patients with type 2 diabetes is still struggling to gain traction in U.S. practice and remains limited to a minority of these patients, a prescribing pattern reflected in recent VA data. Analysis of more than half a million patients in the VA system with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who received treatment at any of 130 VA medical centers throughout 2020 showed that 11% had received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 8% a GLP-1 RA.

The most frequently used antidiabetes drug classes in these patients were insulin in 36%, biguanides in 47%, and sulfonylureas in 22%.

These data also showed a striking level of variability among the 130 VA centers, with some of the sites prescribing either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 RA to as few as about 3% each of these patients, while other centers had a roughly 10-fold higher prescription rate for each of about 25%-30% of their patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD.

Despite the overall modest level of use of both classes in these types of patients as recently as 2020, no barriers exist at the VA to prescribing an agent from one or both classes “if you provide a good reason” for a patient to receive the drugs, Dr. Virani said in an interview. He also predicted that use of both classes in these patients, including combination treatment, will likely soon expand.
 

‘A lot of interest’ in combining an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA

“There will be a lot of interest in combing the two classes. It makes intuitive sense [to treat with both classes] because most patients with diabetes need more than one drug” for glycemic control, he noted. “Why not use two classes that each reduce a patient’s risk” for adverse outcomes involving ASCVD, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, added Dr. Virani.

The study run by Dr. Lopez and his associates used data collected in the National VA Database and included 121,156 patients with both type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Using propensity-score matching the researchers compiled three subgroups that each included 5,277 matched patients. One subgroup had patients prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, a second subgroup included patients on a GLP-1 RA, and a third subgroup had patients on agents from both classes. Patient matching relied on age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, hemoglobin A1c level, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.

Patients included in the analysis averaged about 67 years of age; 97% were men, their average body mass index was about 34 kg/m², their average A1c was about 7.9%, their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55-66 mL/min per 1.73 m², and their average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 55%. The database provided a median follow-up of 902 days (about 2.5 years). The prespecified primary endpoint focused on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up, but the investigators also ran a 3-year follow-up analysis on a post hoc basis.

The most common SGLT2 inhibitor received by these patients was empagliflozin (Jardiance), used on virtually everyone who received an agent from this class. In contrast, the GLP-1 RA drugs that patients received split more widely. The most prescribed agent was liraglutide (Victoza), followed by semaglutide (Ozempic), and dulaglutide (Trulicity), with fewer than 5% receiving exenatide (Bydureon, Byetta).

Regarding other treatments, about 97% of all patients received a statin, about 94% were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, about 90% were on metformin, and roughly 75% were on insulin, aspirin, and a beta-blocker, with smaller numbers on other types of agents.

For the study’s primary endpoint, the 1-year incidence of combined ASCVD events including all-cause death, patients on agents from both classes had a significant 46% reduced rate compared with those on an SGLT2 inhibitor only, and a significant 49% reduced rate, compared with those on a GLP-1 RA only. These between-group separations broadened slightly during 3-year follow-up. Dr. Lopez did not report results of a direct comparison between patients on just an SGLT2 inhibitor and those on just a GLP-1 RA.

For the endpoint of all-cause death, those on combined treatment had a 1-year rate that was 83% below the rate among patients on only an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 81% below the rate among patients who received a GLP-1 RA but not the other class.

Dr. Lopez cautioned that selection bias could have influenced the outcomes of patients who received both classes rather than one or the other, and he also highlighted that the analysis relied on administrative data rather than information gleaned from more detailed medical records or prospectively collected findings and was limited by only including a very small number of women.

“Our results need to be validated in prospective studies,” he declared.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Virani had no commercial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor and a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist had a significant 80% cut in their rate of all-cause death during 1-year follow-up, compared with matched patients treated with an agent from either class alone in an observational, retrospective study of more than 15,000 people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system.

For the study’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, combined treatment with both an agent from the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class and from the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class linked with a significant, roughly 50% cut in events during 1-year follow-up, compared with patients treated with an agent from just one of these two classes, Persio D. Lopez, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This improvement in the combined endpoint outcome resulted entirely from reduced all-cause mortality. Dual treatment showed no significant association with the incidence of nonfatal MIs or strokes, compared with monotherapy, with rates that were nearly identical regardless of whether patients took one of the agents or both, said Dr. Lopez, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center, both in New York.
 

Combining classes for hard-to-control diabetes

“We’re not sure what drives combined use” of agents from both drug classes in these types of patients, admitted Dr. Lopez during his talk. “Our hypothesis is that dual treatment is used in patients with harder-to-control diabetes.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, who practices in the VA system but was not involved with the study, agreed that this is the likely explanation for most instances of high-risk VA patients with diabetes who receive agents from both classes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I have a few patients” on both classes, usually “patients with higher starting A1c levels who need greater glycemic control,” said Dr. Virani, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.

U.S. use of either drug class, let alone both, in patients with type 2 diabetes is still struggling to gain traction in U.S. practice and remains limited to a minority of these patients, a prescribing pattern reflected in recent VA data. Analysis of more than half a million patients in the VA system with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who received treatment at any of 130 VA medical centers throughout 2020 showed that 11% had received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 8% a GLP-1 RA.

The most frequently used antidiabetes drug classes in these patients were insulin in 36%, biguanides in 47%, and sulfonylureas in 22%.

These data also showed a striking level of variability among the 130 VA centers, with some of the sites prescribing either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 RA to as few as about 3% each of these patients, while other centers had a roughly 10-fold higher prescription rate for each of about 25%-30% of their patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD.

Despite the overall modest level of use of both classes in these types of patients as recently as 2020, no barriers exist at the VA to prescribing an agent from one or both classes “if you provide a good reason” for a patient to receive the drugs, Dr. Virani said in an interview. He also predicted that use of both classes in these patients, including combination treatment, will likely soon expand.
 

‘A lot of interest’ in combining an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA

“There will be a lot of interest in combing the two classes. It makes intuitive sense [to treat with both classes] because most patients with diabetes need more than one drug” for glycemic control, he noted. “Why not use two classes that each reduce a patient’s risk” for adverse outcomes involving ASCVD, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, added Dr. Virani.

The study run by Dr. Lopez and his associates used data collected in the National VA Database and included 121,156 patients with both type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Using propensity-score matching the researchers compiled three subgroups that each included 5,277 matched patients. One subgroup had patients prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, a second subgroup included patients on a GLP-1 RA, and a third subgroup had patients on agents from both classes. Patient matching relied on age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, hemoglobin A1c level, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.

Patients included in the analysis averaged about 67 years of age; 97% were men, their average body mass index was about 34 kg/m², their average A1c was about 7.9%, their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55-66 mL/min per 1.73 m², and their average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 55%. The database provided a median follow-up of 902 days (about 2.5 years). The prespecified primary endpoint focused on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up, but the investigators also ran a 3-year follow-up analysis on a post hoc basis.

The most common SGLT2 inhibitor received by these patients was empagliflozin (Jardiance), used on virtually everyone who received an agent from this class. In contrast, the GLP-1 RA drugs that patients received split more widely. The most prescribed agent was liraglutide (Victoza), followed by semaglutide (Ozempic), and dulaglutide (Trulicity), with fewer than 5% receiving exenatide (Bydureon, Byetta).

Regarding other treatments, about 97% of all patients received a statin, about 94% were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, about 90% were on metformin, and roughly 75% were on insulin, aspirin, and a beta-blocker, with smaller numbers on other types of agents.

For the study’s primary endpoint, the 1-year incidence of combined ASCVD events including all-cause death, patients on agents from both classes had a significant 46% reduced rate compared with those on an SGLT2 inhibitor only, and a significant 49% reduced rate, compared with those on a GLP-1 RA only. These between-group separations broadened slightly during 3-year follow-up. Dr. Lopez did not report results of a direct comparison between patients on just an SGLT2 inhibitor and those on just a GLP-1 RA.

For the endpoint of all-cause death, those on combined treatment had a 1-year rate that was 83% below the rate among patients on only an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 81% below the rate among patients who received a GLP-1 RA but not the other class.

Dr. Lopez cautioned that selection bias could have influenced the outcomes of patients who received both classes rather than one or the other, and he also highlighted that the analysis relied on administrative data rather than information gleaned from more detailed medical records or prospectively collected findings and was limited by only including a very small number of women.

“Our results need to be validated in prospective studies,” he declared.

Dr. Lopez and Dr. Virani had no commercial disclosures.

When the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab is added to high-intensity statins soon after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the reduction in atheroma volume is doubled at 12 months, compared with placebo, while other key signs of plaque stabilization, such as fibrous cap thickness, are also significantly and substantially improved, according to the results of the PACMAN-AMI trial.

The study is consistent with other PCSK9 inhibitor trials, supporting the concept that “we should be seeking very low levels of LDL-C in high-risk patients,” reported Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, of Bern (Switz.) University Hospital, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Primary outcome was atheroma volume

The primary endpoint was atheroma volume as determined by intravenous ultrasound (IVUS), but the secondary endpoints of maximum lipid core burden, as determined by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and fibrous cap thickness, as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), were also adequately powered, according to Dr. Räber.

The imaging measures taken at baseline were repeated in exactly the same spot after 52 weeks on treatment.

For the primary outcome of atheroma volume, the mean 2.1% reduction among those randomized to alirocumab was more than double the 0.9% reduction in the placebo group (P = .001).

The mean reduction in lipid core volume based on a maximum lipid core burden index was also more than doubled (-79.42 vs. -37.60 maxLCBI­4mm; P = .006). The increase in fibrous cap thickness was not quite twofold greater but very close (62.67 vs. 33.19 mcm; P = .001).

From baseline, the relative reductions in LDL-C, which were reached about 4 weeks after starting treatment and maintained over the course of the study, were greater in the group randomized to alirocumab (-84.8% vs. -50.7%). This was expected, but the more important finding was a near linear relationship between reductions of LDL-C and each of these endpoints regardless of treatment, fully explaining the advantage of alirocumab, according to Dr. Räber.

For the addition of alirocumab, “these findings indicate incremental coronary plaque regression, lipid core reduction, and plaque stabilization, and provide a mechanistic rationale in favor of early initiation of very intensive LDL-C lower in the setting of an acute MI,” he said.

The results of the PACMAN-AMI trial were published simultaneously at the time of the ACC presentation.
 

Results consistent with earlier trials

Alirocumab was well tolerated. Injection site reactions (6.1% vs. 3.3%) and general allergic reactions (3.4% vs. 0%) were more common on alirocumab, but there were no significant differences between the arms of this study for serious adverse events. There were slightly more neurocognitive events (2.0 vs. 0%) and abnormal alanine transferase levels (0.7% vs. 0%) in the alirocumab group.

The data are generally consistent with two previously published trials with another PCSK9 inhibitor, according to Dr. Räber. In the randomized GLAGOV trial published more than 5 years ago, evolocumab also produced about a 1% absolute reduction (P < .001) in plaque volume at the end of 78 weeks of follow-up relative to placebo.

However, that trial was limited to patients with coronary artery disease without a recent cardiovascular event. The more recent HUYGENS trial, which was presented virtually at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology meeting and has not yet been published, looked at one of the endpoints also evaluated in PACMAN-AMI. In that study of 161 randomized NSTEMI patients, there was also about a doubling of fibrous cap thickness (42.7 vs. 21.5 mcm) for the PCSK9 inhibitor relative to placebo.

Clinical endpoints were not compared in either the PACMAN-AMI or HUYGENS trial.
 

PACMAN-AMI confirms plaque stabilization

Nevertheless, the message of plaque stabilization is important, according to Anthony N. DeMaria, MD, Founding Director of the Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center at the University of San Diego. Although he acknowledged that a 1% absolute reduction in mean plaque volume might “make you want to yawn,” he argued that this is a misreading of important changes observed in plaque physiology.

“What we have now is evidence that very low lipid levels result in plaque remodeling. The plaques might not get a whole lot smaller, but the changes are important,” he said, noting, for example, that a thicker fibrous cap and increased plaque stability “clearly plays a role in reducing risk of subsequent events.”

“You cannot help but be impressed by the relationship of lipid lowering and the favorable effect on remodeling,” he added.

The data associating PCSK9 inhibitors with protection from cardiovascular events is already extensive, according to Michael J. Blaha, MD, Director of Clinical Research for Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but he called PACMAN-ACS “an extremely relevant study.”

When the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab is added to high-intensity statins soon after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the reduction in atheroma volume is doubled at 12 months, compared with placebo, while other key signs of plaque stabilization, such as fibrous cap thickness, are also significantly and substantially improved, according to the results of the PACMAN-AMI trial.

The study is consistent with other PCSK9 inhibitor trials, supporting the concept that “we should be seeking very low levels of LDL-C in high-risk patients,” reported Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, of Bern (Switz.) University Hospital, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Primary outcome was atheroma volume

The primary endpoint was atheroma volume as determined by intravenous ultrasound (IVUS), but the secondary endpoints of maximum lipid core burden, as determined by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and fibrous cap thickness, as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), were also adequately powered, according to Dr. Räber.

The imaging measures taken at baseline were repeated in exactly the same spot after 52 weeks on treatment.

For the primary outcome of atheroma volume, the mean 2.1% reduction among those randomized to alirocumab was more than double the 0.9% reduction in the placebo group (P = .001).

The mean reduction in lipid core volume based on a maximum lipid core burden index was also more than doubled (-79.42 vs. -37.60 maxLCBI­4mm; P = .006). The increase in fibrous cap thickness was not quite twofold greater but very close (62.67 vs. 33.19 mcm; P = .001).

From baseline, the relative reductions in LDL-C, which were reached about 4 weeks after starting treatment and maintained over the course of the study, were greater in the group randomized to alirocumab (-84.8% vs. -50.7%). This was expected, but the more important finding was a near linear relationship between reductions of LDL-C and each of these endpoints regardless of treatment, fully explaining the advantage of alirocumab, according to Dr. Räber.

For the addition of alirocumab, “these findings indicate incremental coronary plaque regression, lipid core reduction, and plaque stabilization, and provide a mechanistic rationale in favor of early initiation of very intensive LDL-C lower in the setting of an acute MI,” he said.

The results of the PACMAN-AMI trial were published simultaneously at the time of the ACC presentation.
 

Results consistent with earlier trials

Alirocumab was well tolerated. Injection site reactions (6.1% vs. 3.3%) and general allergic reactions (3.4% vs. 0%) were more common on alirocumab, but there were no significant differences between the arms of this study for serious adverse events. There were slightly more neurocognitive events (2.0 vs. 0%) and abnormal alanine transferase levels (0.7% vs. 0%) in the alirocumab group.

The data are generally consistent with two previously published trials with another PCSK9 inhibitor, according to Dr. Räber. In the randomized GLAGOV trial published more than 5 years ago, evolocumab also produced about a 1% absolute reduction (P < .001) in plaque volume at the end of 78 weeks of follow-up relative to placebo.

However, that trial was limited to patients with coronary artery disease without a recent cardiovascular event. The more recent HUYGENS trial, which was presented virtually at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology meeting and has not yet been published, looked at one of the endpoints also evaluated in PACMAN-AMI. In that study of 161 randomized NSTEMI patients, there was also about a doubling of fibrous cap thickness (42.7 vs. 21.5 mcm) for the PCSK9 inhibitor relative to placebo.

Clinical endpoints were not compared in either the PACMAN-AMI or HUYGENS trial.
 

PACMAN-AMI confirms plaque stabilization

Nevertheless, the message of plaque stabilization is important, according to Anthony N. DeMaria, MD, Founding Director of the Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center at the University of San Diego. Although he acknowledged that a 1% absolute reduction in mean plaque volume might “make you want to yawn,” he argued that this is a misreading of important changes observed in plaque physiology.

“What we have now is evidence that very low lipid levels result in plaque remodeling. The plaques might not get a whole lot smaller, but the changes are important,” he said, noting, for example, that a thicker fibrous cap and increased plaque stability “clearly plays a role in reducing risk of subsequent events.”

“You cannot help but be impressed by the relationship of lipid lowering and the favorable effect on remodeling,” he added.

The data associating PCSK9 inhibitors with protection from cardiovascular events is already extensive, according to Michael J. Blaha, MD, Director of Clinical Research for Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but he called PACMAN-ACS “an extremely relevant study.”

When the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab is added to high-intensity statins soon after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the reduction in atheroma volume is doubled at 12 months, compared with placebo, while other key signs of plaque stabilization, such as fibrous cap thickness, are also significantly and substantially improved, according to the results of the PACMAN-AMI trial.

The study is consistent with other PCSK9 inhibitor trials, supporting the concept that “we should be seeking very low levels of LDL-C in high-risk patients,” reported Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, of Bern (Switz.) University Hospital, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Primary outcome was atheroma volume

The primary endpoint was atheroma volume as determined by intravenous ultrasound (IVUS), but the secondary endpoints of maximum lipid core burden, as determined by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and fibrous cap thickness, as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), were also adequately powered, according to Dr. Räber.

The imaging measures taken at baseline were repeated in exactly the same spot after 52 weeks on treatment.

For the primary outcome of atheroma volume, the mean 2.1% reduction among those randomized to alirocumab was more than double the 0.9% reduction in the placebo group (P = .001).

The mean reduction in lipid core volume based on a maximum lipid core burden index was also more than doubled (-79.42 vs. -37.60 maxLCBI­4mm; P = .006). The increase in fibrous cap thickness was not quite twofold greater but very close (62.67 vs. 33.19 mcm; P = .001).

From baseline, the relative reductions in LDL-C, which were reached about 4 weeks after starting treatment and maintained over the course of the study, were greater in the group randomized to alirocumab (-84.8% vs. -50.7%). This was expected, but the more important finding was a near linear relationship between reductions of LDL-C and each of these endpoints regardless of treatment, fully explaining the advantage of alirocumab, according to Dr. Räber.

For the addition of alirocumab, “these findings indicate incremental coronary plaque regression, lipid core reduction, and plaque stabilization, and provide a mechanistic rationale in favor of early initiation of very intensive LDL-C lower in the setting of an acute MI,” he said.

The results of the PACMAN-AMI trial were published simultaneously at the time of the ACC presentation.
 

Results consistent with earlier trials

Alirocumab was well tolerated. Injection site reactions (6.1% vs. 3.3%) and general allergic reactions (3.4% vs. 0%) were more common on alirocumab, but there were no significant differences between the arms of this study for serious adverse events. There were slightly more neurocognitive events (2.0 vs. 0%) and abnormal alanine transferase levels (0.7% vs. 0%) in the alirocumab group.

The data are generally consistent with two previously published trials with another PCSK9 inhibitor, according to Dr. Räber. In the randomized GLAGOV trial published more than 5 years ago, evolocumab also produced about a 1% absolute reduction (P < .001) in plaque volume at the end of 78 weeks of follow-up relative to placebo.

However, that trial was limited to patients with coronary artery disease without a recent cardiovascular event. The more recent HUYGENS trial, which was presented virtually at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology meeting and has not yet been published, looked at one of the endpoints also evaluated in PACMAN-AMI. In that study of 161 randomized NSTEMI patients, there was also about a doubling of fibrous cap thickness (42.7 vs. 21.5 mcm) for the PCSK9 inhibitor relative to placebo.

Clinical endpoints were not compared in either the PACMAN-AMI or HUYGENS trial.
 

PACMAN-AMI confirms plaque stabilization

Nevertheless, the message of plaque stabilization is important, according to Anthony N. DeMaria, MD, Founding Director of the Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center at the University of San Diego. Although he acknowledged that a 1% absolute reduction in mean plaque volume might “make you want to yawn,” he argued that this is a misreading of important changes observed in plaque physiology.

“What we have now is evidence that very low lipid levels result in plaque remodeling. The plaques might not get a whole lot smaller, but the changes are important,” he said, noting, for example, that a thicker fibrous cap and increased plaque stability “clearly plays a role in reducing risk of subsequent events.”

“You cannot help but be impressed by the relationship of lipid lowering and the favorable effect on remodeling,” he added.

The data associating PCSK9 inhibitors with protection from cardiovascular events is already extensive, according to Michael J. Blaha, MD, Director of Clinical Research for Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but he called PACMAN-ACS “an extremely relevant study.”

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

In a randomized trial of patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA), 6 weeks of treatment with diltiazem did not improve coronary vasomotor dysfunction – apart from epicardial spasm – or angina symptoms and quality of life. 

The trial investigated whether this therapy would improve these outcomes in patients with two mutually exclusive subgroups, or endotypes, of coronary vasomotor dysfunction: coronary artery spasm (epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm) or coronary microvascular dysfunction indicated by coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) values.

Treatment success, the primary study endpoint – defined as normalization of one of the abnormal endotypes and no normal endotype becoming abnormal – was similar after treatment with diltiazem, compared with placebo. Nor were there significant differences for secondary endpoints apart from improvements in epicardial spasm in the two groups.

Tijn Jansen, MD, presented these findings from the EDIT-CMD trial in a featured clinical research session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published online April 2, 2022, in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“This first study using repeated coronary function testing provides a platform for future research,” concluded Dr. Jansen, a PhD candidate in the department of cardiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

“We were surprised indeed” that diltiazem did not meet its primary endpoint for successful treatment and did not reduce symptoms or improve quality of life, compared with placebo, unlike results of the CorMicA trial, he said in an interview.

“We did find a treatment success, however, of 21%, which was slightly lower than expected, but it was not better than just giving placebo. This was similar regarding symptoms and quality of life, where we did find an overall improvement with diltiazem, but again not higher than using placebo,” he added. “It seems that giving the diagnosis to these patients itself creates a reduction in symptoms,” that might be caused by a reduction in stress, Dr. Jansen suggested.

The clinical implication, he said, is that more randomized controlled trials in this patient population are needed to permit evidence-based patient-tailored treatment, based on the different endotypes. “It might even be imaginable to test effectiveness in each individual patient using coronary function testing,” he said.

These tests are more and more commonly used in clinical practice, Dr. Jansen noted. “In the Netherlands, we recently launched the NL-CFT registry, which enables the participating centers to perform the CFT with a standardized protocol, with the goal to collect data and increase knowledge in this patient population.”

Heterogeneous population?

“I think probably the reason this trial was negative is [that coronary vasomotor dysfunction is] just too heterogeneous,” assigned discussant, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, commented.

First RCT of diltiazem in patients with ANOCA

Up to 40% of patients undergoing coronary angiography for stable angina do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and 60%-90% of these patients have coronary vasomotor dysfunction, Dr. Jansen noted.

The landmark CorMicA trial showed that diagnosing the specific endotype of coronary vasomotor dysfunction using coronary function testing allows for tailored medication that decreased angina and improved quality of life, the researchers noted.

A recent European Society of Cardiology position paper on ANOCA “recommends the use of various pharmacological treatments including calcium-channel blockers, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, and nitric oxide modulators, of which CCBs have the most prominent role in both endotypes of coronary vasospasms” and coronary microvascular dysfunction, they wrote.

“However, evidence substantiating these recommendations is lacking,” the researchers added, “since it is based on studies in a different population, with small sample sizes, or not placebo controlled.”

To investigate this, between 2019 and 2021, EDIT-CMD enrolled 126 adults aged 18 years and older who had two or more chronic angina episodes per week and no signs of obstructive CAD, who were seen at three hospitals specializing in ANOCA in the Netherlands.

The participants underwent coronary function testing that consisted of an acetylcholine spasm provocation test to evaluate for epicardial spasm and microvascular spasm, and a bolus thermodilution test with adenosine, to assess CFR and IMR. Coronary microvascular dysfunction was defined as CFR less than 2.0 and IMR of 25 or greater.

Of 99 patients with vasospasm or microvascular dysfunction, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive diltiazem (n = 41) or placebo (n = 44) for 6 weeks.

The patients in both groups had a mean age of 58 years, and 29% were male; 22% had previously undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 48% had severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society grade III/IV).

At baseline, about 50% had epicardial spasm, 25% had microvascular spasm and 25% had no spasm, and 54% in the diltiazem group and 73% in the placebo group had microvascular dysfunction.

After 6 weeks, 73 patients (35 in the placebo group and 38 in the diltiazem group) were available for repeat coronary function testing.

For the primary outcome, after 6 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with normalization of one abnormal parameter of coronary vasomotor dysfunction, without any normal parameter becoming abnormal, occurred in 8 patients (21%) in the diltiazem group versus 10 patients (29%) in the placebo group (P = .46)

In secondary outcomes, after 6 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of microvascular dysfunction, in Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores for angina symptoms, or RAND-36 scores for quality of life between patients who received diltiazem vs those who received placebo.

However, more patients in the diltiazem group than in the placebo group progressed from epicardial spasm to microvascular or no spasm (47% vs. 6%; P = .006).

The EDIT-CMD trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr. Jansen has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bairey Merz discloses having a fiduciary role and shares in iRhythm and being on the advisory board for Sanofi.

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

In a randomized trial of patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA), 6 weeks of treatment with diltiazem did not improve coronary vasomotor dysfunction – apart from epicardial spasm – or angina symptoms and quality of life. 

The trial investigated whether this therapy would improve these outcomes in patients with two mutually exclusive subgroups, or endotypes, of coronary vasomotor dysfunction: coronary artery spasm (epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm) or coronary microvascular dysfunction indicated by coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) values.

Treatment success, the primary study endpoint – defined as normalization of one of the abnormal endotypes and no normal endotype becoming abnormal – was similar after treatment with diltiazem, compared with placebo. Nor were there significant differences for secondary endpoints apart from improvements in epicardial spasm in the two groups.

Tijn Jansen, MD, presented these findings from the EDIT-CMD trial in a featured clinical research session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published online April 2, 2022, in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“This first study using repeated coronary function testing provides a platform for future research,” concluded Dr. Jansen, a PhD candidate in the department of cardiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

“We were surprised indeed” that diltiazem did not meet its primary endpoint for successful treatment and did not reduce symptoms or improve quality of life, compared with placebo, unlike results of the CorMicA trial, he said in an interview.

“We did find a treatment success, however, of 21%, which was slightly lower than expected, but it was not better than just giving placebo. This was similar regarding symptoms and quality of life, where we did find an overall improvement with diltiazem, but again not higher than using placebo,” he added. “It seems that giving the diagnosis to these patients itself creates a reduction in symptoms,” that might be caused by a reduction in stress, Dr. Jansen suggested.

The clinical implication, he said, is that more randomized controlled trials in this patient population are needed to permit evidence-based patient-tailored treatment, based on the different endotypes. “It might even be imaginable to test effectiveness in each individual patient using coronary function testing,” he said.

These tests are more and more commonly used in clinical practice, Dr. Jansen noted. “In the Netherlands, we recently launched the NL-CFT registry, which enables the participating centers to perform the CFT with a standardized protocol, with the goal to collect data and increase knowledge in this patient population.”

Heterogeneous population?

“I think probably the reason this trial was negative is [that coronary vasomotor dysfunction is] just too heterogeneous,” assigned discussant, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, commented.

First RCT of diltiazem in patients with ANOCA

Up to 40% of patients undergoing coronary angiography for stable angina do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and 60%-90% of these patients have coronary vasomotor dysfunction, Dr. Jansen noted.

The landmark CorMicA trial showed that diagnosing the specific endotype of coronary vasomotor dysfunction using coronary function testing allows for tailored medication that decreased angina and improved quality of life, the researchers noted.

A recent European Society of Cardiology position paper on ANOCA “recommends the use of various pharmacological treatments including calcium-channel blockers, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, and nitric oxide modulators, of which CCBs have the most prominent role in both endotypes of coronary vasospasms” and coronary microvascular dysfunction, they wrote.

“However, evidence substantiating these recommendations is lacking,” the researchers added, “since it is based on studies in a different population, with small sample sizes, or not placebo controlled.”

To investigate this, between 2019 and 2021, EDIT-CMD enrolled 126 adults aged 18 years and older who had two or more chronic angina episodes per week and no signs of obstructive CAD, who were seen at three hospitals specializing in ANOCA in the Netherlands.

The participants underwent coronary function testing that consisted of an acetylcholine spasm provocation test to evaluate for epicardial spasm and microvascular spasm, and a bolus thermodilution test with adenosine, to assess CFR and IMR. Coronary microvascular dysfunction was defined as CFR less than 2.0 and IMR of 25 or greater.

Of 99 patients with vasospasm or microvascular dysfunction, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive diltiazem (n = 41) or placebo (n = 44) for 6 weeks.

The patients in both groups had a mean age of 58 years, and 29% were male; 22% had previously undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 48% had severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society grade III/IV).

At baseline, about 50% had epicardial spasm, 25% had microvascular spasm and 25% had no spasm, and 54% in the diltiazem group and 73% in the placebo group had microvascular dysfunction.

After 6 weeks, 73 patients (35 in the placebo group and 38 in the diltiazem group) were available for repeat coronary function testing.

For the primary outcome, after 6 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with normalization of one abnormal parameter of coronary vasomotor dysfunction, without any normal parameter becoming abnormal, occurred in 8 patients (21%) in the diltiazem group versus 10 patients (29%) in the placebo group (P = .46)

In secondary outcomes, after 6 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of microvascular dysfunction, in Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores for angina symptoms, or RAND-36 scores for quality of life between patients who received diltiazem vs those who received placebo.

However, more patients in the diltiazem group than in the placebo group progressed from epicardial spasm to microvascular or no spasm (47% vs. 6%; P = .006).

The EDIT-CMD trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr. Jansen has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bairey Merz discloses having a fiduciary role and shares in iRhythm and being on the advisory board for Sanofi.

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

In a randomized trial of patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA), 6 weeks of treatment with diltiazem did not improve coronary vasomotor dysfunction – apart from epicardial spasm – or angina symptoms and quality of life. 

The trial investigated whether this therapy would improve these outcomes in patients with two mutually exclusive subgroups, or endotypes, of coronary vasomotor dysfunction: coronary artery spasm (epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm) or coronary microvascular dysfunction indicated by coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) values.

Treatment success, the primary study endpoint – defined as normalization of one of the abnormal endotypes and no normal endotype becoming abnormal – was similar after treatment with diltiazem, compared with placebo. Nor were there significant differences for secondary endpoints apart from improvements in epicardial spasm in the two groups.

Tijn Jansen, MD, presented these findings from the EDIT-CMD trial in a featured clinical research session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published online April 2, 2022, in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“This first study using repeated coronary function testing provides a platform for future research,” concluded Dr. Jansen, a PhD candidate in the department of cardiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

“We were surprised indeed” that diltiazem did not meet its primary endpoint for successful treatment and did not reduce symptoms or improve quality of life, compared with placebo, unlike results of the CorMicA trial, he said in an interview.

“We did find a treatment success, however, of 21%, which was slightly lower than expected, but it was not better than just giving placebo. This was similar regarding symptoms and quality of life, where we did find an overall improvement with diltiazem, but again not higher than using placebo,” he added. “It seems that giving the diagnosis to these patients itself creates a reduction in symptoms,” that might be caused by a reduction in stress, Dr. Jansen suggested.

The clinical implication, he said, is that more randomized controlled trials in this patient population are needed to permit evidence-based patient-tailored treatment, based on the different endotypes. “It might even be imaginable to test effectiveness in each individual patient using coronary function testing,” he said.

These tests are more and more commonly used in clinical practice, Dr. Jansen noted. “In the Netherlands, we recently launched the NL-CFT registry, which enables the participating centers to perform the CFT with a standardized protocol, with the goal to collect data and increase knowledge in this patient population.”

Heterogeneous population?

“I think probably the reason this trial was negative is [that coronary vasomotor dysfunction is] just too heterogeneous,” assigned discussant, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, commented.

First RCT of diltiazem in patients with ANOCA

Up to 40% of patients undergoing coronary angiography for stable angina do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and 60%-90% of these patients have coronary vasomotor dysfunction, Dr. Jansen noted.

The landmark CorMicA trial showed that diagnosing the specific endotype of coronary vasomotor dysfunction using coronary function testing allows for tailored medication that decreased angina and improved quality of life, the researchers noted.

A recent European Society of Cardiology position paper on ANOCA “recommends the use of various pharmacological treatments including calcium-channel blockers, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, and nitric oxide modulators, of which CCBs have the most prominent role in both endotypes of coronary vasospasms” and coronary microvascular dysfunction, they wrote.

“However, evidence substantiating these recommendations is lacking,” the researchers added, “since it is based on studies in a different population, with small sample sizes, or not placebo controlled.”

To investigate this, between 2019 and 2021, EDIT-CMD enrolled 126 adults aged 18 years and older who had two or more chronic angina episodes per week and no signs of obstructive CAD, who were seen at three hospitals specializing in ANOCA in the Netherlands.

The participants underwent coronary function testing that consisted of an acetylcholine spasm provocation test to evaluate for epicardial spasm and microvascular spasm, and a bolus thermodilution test with adenosine, to assess CFR and IMR. Coronary microvascular dysfunction was defined as CFR less than 2.0 and IMR of 25 or greater.

Of 99 patients with vasospasm or microvascular dysfunction, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive diltiazem (n = 41) or placebo (n = 44) for 6 weeks.

The patients in both groups had a mean age of 58 years, and 29% were male; 22% had previously undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 48% had severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society grade III/IV).

At baseline, about 50% had epicardial spasm, 25% had microvascular spasm and 25% had no spasm, and 54% in the diltiazem group and 73% in the placebo group had microvascular dysfunction.

After 6 weeks, 73 patients (35 in the placebo group and 38 in the diltiazem group) were available for repeat coronary function testing.

For the primary outcome, after 6 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with normalization of one abnormal parameter of coronary vasomotor dysfunction, without any normal parameter becoming abnormal, occurred in 8 patients (21%) in the diltiazem group versus 10 patients (29%) in the placebo group (P = .46)

In secondary outcomes, after 6 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of microvascular dysfunction, in Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores for angina symptoms, or RAND-36 scores for quality of life between patients who received diltiazem vs those who received placebo.

However, more patients in the diltiazem group than in the placebo group progressed from epicardial spasm to microvascular or no spasm (47% vs. 6%; P = .006).

The EDIT-CMD trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr. Jansen has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bairey Merz discloses having a fiduciary role and shares in iRhythm and being on the advisory board for Sanofi.

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.
 

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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