User login
AHA/ACC issue updated chronic coronary disease guidelines
The latest clinical practice guideline for managing patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD) takes an evidence-based and patient-centered approach to care and includes key updates on revascularization, beta-blocker use, and routine functional and anatomic testing.
Developed by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and other specialty societies, the 2023 guideline both updates and consolidates ACC/AHA guidelines previously published in 2012 and 2014 for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
It was published online in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .
Among the key recommendations were the following.
- Long-term beta-blocker therapy is no longer recommended for improving outcomes for patients with CCD in the absence of myocardial infarction within the past year, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than or equal to 50%, or another primary indication for beta-blocker therapy. Either a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker is recommended as first-line antianginal therapy.
- Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are recommended for select groups of patients with CCD, including individuals without diabetes, to improve outcomes.
- Statins remain first-line therapy for lipid lowering for patients with CCD. Several adjunctive therapies, such as ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, or bempedoic acid, may be used in select populations, although clinical outcomes data are not yet available for novel agents such as inclisiran and bempedoic acid.
- Shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are safe and effective in many circumstances, particularly when the risk of bleeding is high and the ischemic risk is not high.
- The use of nonprescription or dietary supplements, including fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids or vitamins, is not recommended for patients with CCD, given the lack of benefit in reducing cardiovascular events.
- Revascularization is recommended in two scenarios: (1) for patients with lifestyle-limiting angina despite guideline-directed medical therapy and with coronary stenoses amenable to revascularization, with the goal of improving symptoms; and (2) for patients with significant left main disease or multivessel disease with severe LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), for whom coronary artery bypass grafting plus medical therapy is recommended over medical therapy alone, with the goal of improving survival.
- Routine periodic anatomic or ischemic testing in the absence of a change in clinical or functional status is not recommended for risk stratification or to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients with CCD.
- Nondrug therapies, including healthy dietary habits and exercise, are recommended for all patients with CCD. When possible, patients should participate in regular physical activity, including activities to reduce sitting time and to increase aerobic and resistance exercise.
- Cardiac rehabilitation for eligible patients provides significant cardiovascular benefits, including decreased morbidity and mortality.
- Electronic cigarettes increase the odds of successful smoking cessation, but they are not recommended as first-line therapy, owing to the lack of long-term safety data and risks associated with sustained use.
Living document
The co-authors of a related editorial note that “CCD as defined in the 2023 guideline includes patients who may or may not have classic signs and symptoms of CAD.
“The 2023 guideline reflects this heterogeneity by including patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome hospitalization, those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, stable angina or equivalent with or without a positive imaging test, vasospasm or microvascular disease, and positive noninvasive screening test leading to a clinician diagnosis of CAD,” write Sunil V. Rao, MD, with NYU Langone Health System, and co-authors.
“The focus of the guideline is on extending life and improving quality of life for CCD patients, taking into account patient priorities and the importance of equitable care. There is emphasis on shared decision-making that involves the patient’s preferences and values when considering treatment options,” they point out.
“Importantly, the guidelines exist to provide guidance and are meant to complement, not supplant, clinical judgment. As the evidence for the management of CCD continues to evolve, the guidelines will need to be a ‘living document’ to ensure that clinicians and patients can achieve their shared therapeutic goals of reducing mortality and improving quality of life,” they add.
The 2023 guideline on management of patients with CCD was developed in collaboration with and was endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, the National Lipid Association, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. It has been endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest clinical practice guideline for managing patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD) takes an evidence-based and patient-centered approach to care and includes key updates on revascularization, beta-blocker use, and routine functional and anatomic testing.
Developed by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and other specialty societies, the 2023 guideline both updates and consolidates ACC/AHA guidelines previously published in 2012 and 2014 for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
It was published online in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .
Among the key recommendations were the following.
- Long-term beta-blocker therapy is no longer recommended for improving outcomes for patients with CCD in the absence of myocardial infarction within the past year, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than or equal to 50%, or another primary indication for beta-blocker therapy. Either a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker is recommended as first-line antianginal therapy.
- Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are recommended for select groups of patients with CCD, including individuals without diabetes, to improve outcomes.
- Statins remain first-line therapy for lipid lowering for patients with CCD. Several adjunctive therapies, such as ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, or bempedoic acid, may be used in select populations, although clinical outcomes data are not yet available for novel agents such as inclisiran and bempedoic acid.
- Shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are safe and effective in many circumstances, particularly when the risk of bleeding is high and the ischemic risk is not high.
- The use of nonprescription or dietary supplements, including fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids or vitamins, is not recommended for patients with CCD, given the lack of benefit in reducing cardiovascular events.
- Revascularization is recommended in two scenarios: (1) for patients with lifestyle-limiting angina despite guideline-directed medical therapy and with coronary stenoses amenable to revascularization, with the goal of improving symptoms; and (2) for patients with significant left main disease or multivessel disease with severe LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), for whom coronary artery bypass grafting plus medical therapy is recommended over medical therapy alone, with the goal of improving survival.
- Routine periodic anatomic or ischemic testing in the absence of a change in clinical or functional status is not recommended for risk stratification or to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients with CCD.
- Nondrug therapies, including healthy dietary habits and exercise, are recommended for all patients with CCD. When possible, patients should participate in regular physical activity, including activities to reduce sitting time and to increase aerobic and resistance exercise.
- Cardiac rehabilitation for eligible patients provides significant cardiovascular benefits, including decreased morbidity and mortality.
- Electronic cigarettes increase the odds of successful smoking cessation, but they are not recommended as first-line therapy, owing to the lack of long-term safety data and risks associated with sustained use.
Living document
The co-authors of a related editorial note that “CCD as defined in the 2023 guideline includes patients who may or may not have classic signs and symptoms of CAD.
“The 2023 guideline reflects this heterogeneity by including patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome hospitalization, those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, stable angina or equivalent with or without a positive imaging test, vasospasm or microvascular disease, and positive noninvasive screening test leading to a clinician diagnosis of CAD,” write Sunil V. Rao, MD, with NYU Langone Health System, and co-authors.
“The focus of the guideline is on extending life and improving quality of life for CCD patients, taking into account patient priorities and the importance of equitable care. There is emphasis on shared decision-making that involves the patient’s preferences and values when considering treatment options,” they point out.
“Importantly, the guidelines exist to provide guidance and are meant to complement, not supplant, clinical judgment. As the evidence for the management of CCD continues to evolve, the guidelines will need to be a ‘living document’ to ensure that clinicians and patients can achieve their shared therapeutic goals of reducing mortality and improving quality of life,” they add.
The 2023 guideline on management of patients with CCD was developed in collaboration with and was endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, the National Lipid Association, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. It has been endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest clinical practice guideline for managing patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD) takes an evidence-based and patient-centered approach to care and includes key updates on revascularization, beta-blocker use, and routine functional and anatomic testing.
Developed by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and other specialty societies, the 2023 guideline both updates and consolidates ACC/AHA guidelines previously published in 2012 and 2014 for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
It was published online in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .
Among the key recommendations were the following.
- Long-term beta-blocker therapy is no longer recommended for improving outcomes for patients with CCD in the absence of myocardial infarction within the past year, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than or equal to 50%, or another primary indication for beta-blocker therapy. Either a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker is recommended as first-line antianginal therapy.
- Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are recommended for select groups of patients with CCD, including individuals without diabetes, to improve outcomes.
- Statins remain first-line therapy for lipid lowering for patients with CCD. Several adjunctive therapies, such as ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, or bempedoic acid, may be used in select populations, although clinical outcomes data are not yet available for novel agents such as inclisiran and bempedoic acid.
- Shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are safe and effective in many circumstances, particularly when the risk of bleeding is high and the ischemic risk is not high.
- The use of nonprescription or dietary supplements, including fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids or vitamins, is not recommended for patients with CCD, given the lack of benefit in reducing cardiovascular events.
- Revascularization is recommended in two scenarios: (1) for patients with lifestyle-limiting angina despite guideline-directed medical therapy and with coronary stenoses amenable to revascularization, with the goal of improving symptoms; and (2) for patients with significant left main disease or multivessel disease with severe LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), for whom coronary artery bypass grafting plus medical therapy is recommended over medical therapy alone, with the goal of improving survival.
- Routine periodic anatomic or ischemic testing in the absence of a change in clinical or functional status is not recommended for risk stratification or to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients with CCD.
- Nondrug therapies, including healthy dietary habits and exercise, are recommended for all patients with CCD. When possible, patients should participate in regular physical activity, including activities to reduce sitting time and to increase aerobic and resistance exercise.
- Cardiac rehabilitation for eligible patients provides significant cardiovascular benefits, including decreased morbidity and mortality.
- Electronic cigarettes increase the odds of successful smoking cessation, but they are not recommended as first-line therapy, owing to the lack of long-term safety data and risks associated with sustained use.
Living document
The co-authors of a related editorial note that “CCD as defined in the 2023 guideline includes patients who may or may not have classic signs and symptoms of CAD.
“The 2023 guideline reflects this heterogeneity by including patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome hospitalization, those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, stable angina or equivalent with or without a positive imaging test, vasospasm or microvascular disease, and positive noninvasive screening test leading to a clinician diagnosis of CAD,” write Sunil V. Rao, MD, with NYU Langone Health System, and co-authors.
“The focus of the guideline is on extending life and improving quality of life for CCD patients, taking into account patient priorities and the importance of equitable care. There is emphasis on shared decision-making that involves the patient’s preferences and values when considering treatment options,” they point out.
“Importantly, the guidelines exist to provide guidance and are meant to complement, not supplant, clinical judgment. As the evidence for the management of CCD continues to evolve, the guidelines will need to be a ‘living document’ to ensure that clinicians and patients can achieve their shared therapeutic goals of reducing mortality and improving quality of life,” they add.
The 2023 guideline on management of patients with CCD was developed in collaboration with and was endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, the National Lipid Association, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. It has been endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.
The research had no commercial funding.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stiff arteries may cause metabolic syndrome
New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence.
Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.
“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.
Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.
“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”
The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.
To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.
Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.
The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential.
Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.”
Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.
“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.
Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.
Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.
Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.
“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.
Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.
“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said.
For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.
The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence.
Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.
“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.
Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.
“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”
The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.
To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.
Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.
The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential.
Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.”
Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.
“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.
Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.
Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.
Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.
“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.
Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.
“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said.
For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.
The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence.
Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.
“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.
Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.
“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”
The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.
To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.
Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.
The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential.
Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.”
Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.
“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.
Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.
Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.
Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.
“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.
Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.
“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said.
For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.
The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY
Vegetarian diets can improve high-risk cardiovascular disease
, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.
“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.
Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.
“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets
For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.
The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.
The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).
The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).
Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.
Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.
Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.
The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.
Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.
The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.
“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet
Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.
In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.
“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
Not all vegetarian diets are healthy
Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.
The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.
Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.
Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.
Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.
They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”
Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.
“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.
Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.
“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets
For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.
The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.
The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).
The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).
Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.
Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.
Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.
The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.
Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.
The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.
“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet
Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.
In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.
“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
Not all vegetarian diets are healthy
Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.
The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.
Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.
Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.
Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.
They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”
Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.
“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.
Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.
“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets
For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.
The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.
The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).
The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).
Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.
Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.
Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.
The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.
Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.
The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.
“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet
Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.
In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.
“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
Not all vegetarian diets are healthy
Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.
The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.
Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.
Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.
Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.
They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”
Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Gut and oral flora linked to subclinical CAD, inflammation
TOPLINE:
in a population-based observational study.
METHODOLOGY:
Links between gut microbiota and coronary atherosclerosis have been studied primarily in symptomatic patients who were likely receiving therapies that may have shifted the balance of different organisms; there are fewer data from people with asymptomatic coronary disease.
Oral bacterial species are commonly transmitted to the gut, suggesting that gut and oral microbiota profiles are related and, further, that the gut may allow oral pathogenic bacteria to enter the circulation.
The current study included 8,973 adults (53.7% women) without cardiovascular (CV) disease for whom adequate imaging and other data were available from the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study (SCAPIS) and the Malmö Offspring Study (MOS).
Researchers looked for associations between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores (an index of atherosclerosis), gut bacterial species (identified in fecal samples), oral flora and pathologies, and systemic inflammatory biomarkers.
TAKEAWAY:
Among the 64 species that correlated with CAC scores independently of CV risk factors, 51 showed a positive association, especially S. anginosus and S. oralis subsp oralis; patients with higher levels of those two species generally had more CV risk factors.
Twenty-five bacterial species that correlated with CAC scores were also associated with any coronary plaque by CT angiography. Five such species were associated with coronary stenosis greater than 50%, 39 with the modified Duke index, and five with carotid plaques (P < .05).
Of 54 species positively associated with CAC scores, 13 also tracked with C-reactive protein levels by high-sensitivity assay, 10 with leukocyte counts, and 11 with neutrophil counts (P < .05).
Bacterial species common in the oral cavity made up most of the species that correlated with all three inflammatory biomarkers; they included the streptococci most strongly correlating with CAC scores, that is, S. anginosus, S. oralis subsp oralis, and S. parasanguinis.
IN PRACTICE:
If the associations between gut bacterial species and markers of coronary atherosclerosis are found to be causal, such bacteria may “contribute to atherogenesis by direct infection or by altering host metabolism,” the report states. “Future studies will show whether these species can be used as potential biomarkers or treatment targets.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Sergi Sayols-Baixeras, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues. It was published online July 12, 2023, in Circulation.
LIMITATIONS:
Few participants had a high degree of subclinical atherosclerosis, which may reduce statistical power. Fecal samples disclose organisms primarily from the distal colon, but “microbial composition can vary extensively throughout the gastrointestinal tract.” The investigators did not consider potential synergistic interactions among bacterial species that could influence their relationship to coronary atherosclerosis. Captured data regarding antibiotic therapy didn’t account for any in-hospital treatment. The study’s cross-sectional design precludes inferences about causation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the European Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Diabetes Foundation, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the G
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in a population-based observational study.
METHODOLOGY:
Links between gut microbiota and coronary atherosclerosis have been studied primarily in symptomatic patients who were likely receiving therapies that may have shifted the balance of different organisms; there are fewer data from people with asymptomatic coronary disease.
Oral bacterial species are commonly transmitted to the gut, suggesting that gut and oral microbiota profiles are related and, further, that the gut may allow oral pathogenic bacteria to enter the circulation.
The current study included 8,973 adults (53.7% women) without cardiovascular (CV) disease for whom adequate imaging and other data were available from the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study (SCAPIS) and the Malmö Offspring Study (MOS).
Researchers looked for associations between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores (an index of atherosclerosis), gut bacterial species (identified in fecal samples), oral flora and pathologies, and systemic inflammatory biomarkers.
TAKEAWAY:
Among the 64 species that correlated with CAC scores independently of CV risk factors, 51 showed a positive association, especially S. anginosus and S. oralis subsp oralis; patients with higher levels of those two species generally had more CV risk factors.
Twenty-five bacterial species that correlated with CAC scores were also associated with any coronary plaque by CT angiography. Five such species were associated with coronary stenosis greater than 50%, 39 with the modified Duke index, and five with carotid plaques (P < .05).
Of 54 species positively associated with CAC scores, 13 also tracked with C-reactive protein levels by high-sensitivity assay, 10 with leukocyte counts, and 11 with neutrophil counts (P < .05).
Bacterial species common in the oral cavity made up most of the species that correlated with all three inflammatory biomarkers; they included the streptococci most strongly correlating with CAC scores, that is, S. anginosus, S. oralis subsp oralis, and S. parasanguinis.
IN PRACTICE:
If the associations between gut bacterial species and markers of coronary atherosclerosis are found to be causal, such bacteria may “contribute to atherogenesis by direct infection or by altering host metabolism,” the report states. “Future studies will show whether these species can be used as potential biomarkers or treatment targets.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Sergi Sayols-Baixeras, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues. It was published online July 12, 2023, in Circulation.
LIMITATIONS:
Few participants had a high degree of subclinical atherosclerosis, which may reduce statistical power. Fecal samples disclose organisms primarily from the distal colon, but “microbial composition can vary extensively throughout the gastrointestinal tract.” The investigators did not consider potential synergistic interactions among bacterial species that could influence their relationship to coronary atherosclerosis. Captured data regarding antibiotic therapy didn’t account for any in-hospital treatment. The study’s cross-sectional design precludes inferences about causation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the European Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Diabetes Foundation, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the G
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in a population-based observational study.
METHODOLOGY:
Links between gut microbiota and coronary atherosclerosis have been studied primarily in symptomatic patients who were likely receiving therapies that may have shifted the balance of different organisms; there are fewer data from people with asymptomatic coronary disease.
Oral bacterial species are commonly transmitted to the gut, suggesting that gut and oral microbiota profiles are related and, further, that the gut may allow oral pathogenic bacteria to enter the circulation.
The current study included 8,973 adults (53.7% women) without cardiovascular (CV) disease for whom adequate imaging and other data were available from the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study (SCAPIS) and the Malmö Offspring Study (MOS).
Researchers looked for associations between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores (an index of atherosclerosis), gut bacterial species (identified in fecal samples), oral flora and pathologies, and systemic inflammatory biomarkers.
TAKEAWAY:
Among the 64 species that correlated with CAC scores independently of CV risk factors, 51 showed a positive association, especially S. anginosus and S. oralis subsp oralis; patients with higher levels of those two species generally had more CV risk factors.
Twenty-five bacterial species that correlated with CAC scores were also associated with any coronary plaque by CT angiography. Five such species were associated with coronary stenosis greater than 50%, 39 with the modified Duke index, and five with carotid plaques (P < .05).
Of 54 species positively associated with CAC scores, 13 also tracked with C-reactive protein levels by high-sensitivity assay, 10 with leukocyte counts, and 11 with neutrophil counts (P < .05).
Bacterial species common in the oral cavity made up most of the species that correlated with all three inflammatory biomarkers; they included the streptococci most strongly correlating with CAC scores, that is, S. anginosus, S. oralis subsp oralis, and S. parasanguinis.
IN PRACTICE:
If the associations between gut bacterial species and markers of coronary atherosclerosis are found to be causal, such bacteria may “contribute to atherogenesis by direct infection or by altering host metabolism,” the report states. “Future studies will show whether these species can be used as potential biomarkers or treatment targets.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Sergi Sayols-Baixeras, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues. It was published online July 12, 2023, in Circulation.
LIMITATIONS:
Few participants had a high degree of subclinical atherosclerosis, which may reduce statistical power. Fecal samples disclose organisms primarily from the distal colon, but “microbial composition can vary extensively throughout the gastrointestinal tract.” The investigators did not consider potential synergistic interactions among bacterial species that could influence their relationship to coronary atherosclerosis. Captured data regarding antibiotic therapy didn’t account for any in-hospital treatment. The study’s cross-sectional design precludes inferences about causation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the European Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Diabetes Foundation, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the G
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Aspirin not the best antiplatelet for CAD secondary prevention in meta-analysis
such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.
The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.
About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.
Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.
Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.
The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.
“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”
Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”
Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.
Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.
About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.
In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.
The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.
The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.
Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).
Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:
- GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
- Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
- Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)
The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.
It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.
“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”
In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”
But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”
Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.
The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.
About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.
Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.
Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.
The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.
“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”
Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”
Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.
Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.
About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.
In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.
The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.
The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.
Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).
Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:
- GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
- Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
- Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)
The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.
It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.
“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”
In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”
But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”
Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.
The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.
About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.
Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.
Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.
The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.
“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”
Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”
Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.
Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.
About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.
In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.
The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.
The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.
Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).
Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:
- GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
- Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
- Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)
The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.
It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.
“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”
In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”
But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”
Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JACC
Heart-protective diet in PURE study allows whole-fat dairy
Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.
The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.
A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.
Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.
Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.
“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.
“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”
The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
Healthy diet score
PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.
The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.
There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:
- Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
- MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
- Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).
The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.
In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:
- Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
- MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).
In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:
- MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
- Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).
In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.
The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:
- Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
- MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
- Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
- Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).
“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”
Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”
Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”
Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
Common human biology
The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”
Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”
Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
Not automatically superior
“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.
“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”
The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”
Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.
The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.
The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.
A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.
Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.
Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.
“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.
“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”
The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
Healthy diet score
PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.
The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.
There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:
- Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
- MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
- Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).
The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.
In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:
- Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
- MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).
In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:
- MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
- Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).
In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.
The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:
- Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
- MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
- Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
- Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).
“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”
Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”
Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”
Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
Common human biology
The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”
Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”
Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
Not automatically superior
“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.
“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”
The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”
Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.
The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.
The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.
A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.
Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.
Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.
“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.
“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”
The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
Healthy diet score
PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.
The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.
There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:
- Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
- MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
- Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).
The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.
In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:
- Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
- MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).
In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:
- MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
- Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).
In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.
The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:
- Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
- Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
- MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
- Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
- Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).
“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”
Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”
Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”
Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
Common human biology
The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”
Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”
Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
Not automatically superior
“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.
“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”
The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”
Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.
The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EUROPEAN HEART CENTER
TAVI turmoil: Did an ANP perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the U.K.?
In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”
The now-deleted tweet from @GHCardiology is still visible in the Twitter thread of Mamas A. Mamas, a professor of interventional cardiology at Keele University, England. “This is so inappropriate on so many levels,” Dr. Mamas tweeted. “This is not safe for patients particularly given that there are numerous TAVI trained medically qualified operators in UK. You have also taken away training opportunities for medical / surgical trainees.”
Other followers also responded, largely negatively.
“This is crazy. Is this @TheOnion???” tweeted Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, Calif., in response to Dr. Mamas, referring to the popular satirical news outlet. “Seriously I can’t see this as an actuality given the potential for so many other issues they wouldn’t know how to deal with.”
Could it happen in the U.S.?
Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.
“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
What it takes to do TAVR
Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.
Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.
“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”
The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.
In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”
Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”
In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...
“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”
The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
Why it matters: Scope creep
Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”
More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”
Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.
The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.
In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.
In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.
Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
Time for a rethink?
Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.
In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”
Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”
The now-deleted tweet from @GHCardiology is still visible in the Twitter thread of Mamas A. Mamas, a professor of interventional cardiology at Keele University, England. “This is so inappropriate on so many levels,” Dr. Mamas tweeted. “This is not safe for patients particularly given that there are numerous TAVI trained medically qualified operators in UK. You have also taken away training opportunities for medical / surgical trainees.”
Other followers also responded, largely negatively.
“This is crazy. Is this @TheOnion???” tweeted Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, Calif., in response to Dr. Mamas, referring to the popular satirical news outlet. “Seriously I can’t see this as an actuality given the potential for so many other issues they wouldn’t know how to deal with.”
Could it happen in the U.S.?
Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.
“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
What it takes to do TAVR
Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.
Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.
“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”
The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.
In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”
Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”
In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...
“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”
The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
Why it matters: Scope creep
Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”
More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”
Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.
The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.
In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.
In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.
Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
Time for a rethink?
Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.
In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”
Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”
The now-deleted tweet from @GHCardiology is still visible in the Twitter thread of Mamas A. Mamas, a professor of interventional cardiology at Keele University, England. “This is so inappropriate on so many levels,” Dr. Mamas tweeted. “This is not safe for patients particularly given that there are numerous TAVI trained medically qualified operators in UK. You have also taken away training opportunities for medical / surgical trainees.”
Other followers also responded, largely negatively.
“This is crazy. Is this @TheOnion???” tweeted Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, Calif., in response to Dr. Mamas, referring to the popular satirical news outlet. “Seriously I can’t see this as an actuality given the potential for so many other issues they wouldn’t know how to deal with.”
Could it happen in the U.S.?
Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.
“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
What it takes to do TAVR
Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.
Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.
“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”
The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.
In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”
Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”
In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...
“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”
The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
Why it matters: Scope creep
Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”
More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”
Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.
The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.
In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.
In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.
Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
Time for a rethink?
Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.
In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”
Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Does colchicine have a role in treating excess ASCVD risk in patients with chronic inflammatory conditions?
The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.
Potential in rheumatology
The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.
The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.
She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.
However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.
“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”
However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.
Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.
Possibilities in dermatology
The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.
Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.
“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”
Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.
Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?
Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.
“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.
Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.
Potential in rheumatology
The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.
The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.
She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.
However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.
“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”
However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.
Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.
Possibilities in dermatology
The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.
Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.
“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”
Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.
Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?
Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.
“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.
Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.
Potential in rheumatology
The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.
The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.
She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.
However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.
“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”
However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.
Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.
Possibilities in dermatology
The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.
Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.
“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”
Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.
Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?
Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.
“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.
Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
Low-dose colchicine approved for CVD: Now what?
The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.
The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?
“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”
Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.
“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.
“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”
Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.
“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
Is CRP measurement necessary?
Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.
“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.
“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”
Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.
“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’
Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.
“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.
“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”
Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”
Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”
Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”
He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.
“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?
A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.
He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.
Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.
“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.
“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.
“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.
“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.
Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.
If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”
Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.
“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
Polypharmacy concerns
Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.
“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.
“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.
“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.
“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
Safety is reassuring
In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.
“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”
Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”
Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
Part of the backbone of CV treatment?
Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.
“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.
“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”
Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.
The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?
“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”
Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.
“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.
“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”
Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.
“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
Is CRP measurement necessary?
Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.
“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.
“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”
Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.
“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’
Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.
“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.
“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”
Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”
Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”
Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”
He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.
“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?
A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.
He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.
Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.
“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.
“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.
“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.
“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.
Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.
If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”
Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.
“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
Polypharmacy concerns
Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.
“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.
“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.
“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.
“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
Safety is reassuring
In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.
“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”
Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”
Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
Part of the backbone of CV treatment?
Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.
“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.
“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”
Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.
The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?
“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”
Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.
“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.
“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”
Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.
“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
Is CRP measurement necessary?
Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.
“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.
“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”
Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.
“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’
Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.
“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.
“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”
Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”
Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”
Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”
He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.
“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?
A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.
He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.
Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.
“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.
“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.
“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.
“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.
Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.
If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”
Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.
“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
Polypharmacy concerns
Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.
“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.
“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.
“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.
“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
Safety is reassuring
In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.
“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”
Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”
Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
Part of the backbone of CV treatment?
Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.
“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.
“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”
Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs low-dose colchicine for broad CV indication
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 
The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.
Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.
Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.
In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI.
Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
‘A very big day for cardiology’
“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.
“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.
He pointed out that
“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.
But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.
“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.
Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach.
“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.
Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.
The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.
Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.
More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.
The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications.
The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.
Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.
Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.
In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI.
Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
‘A very big day for cardiology’
“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.
“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.
He pointed out that
“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.
But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.
“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.
Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach.
“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.
Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.
The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.
Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.
More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.
The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications.
The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.
Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.
Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.
In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI.
Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
‘A very big day for cardiology’
“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.
“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.
He pointed out that
“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.
But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.
“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.
Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach.
“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.
Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.
The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.
Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.
More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.
The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.