CAD & Atherosclerosis

Signs of cardiometabolic damage in children who are overweight appear as early as 6-8 years of age, but were not evident in preschoolers, providing a window of opportunity for intervention, show the latest results from a long-running Danish study of childhood weight.

The proportion of children who were overweight (nearly 14% in 2015) was similar between the two groups – those of preschool age (2-5 years) and school age (6-8 years) – but only the latter showed significant signs of cardiometabolic abnormalities.

The results, published in Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, are the latest in a series of many findings from the HOLBAEK study (formerly known as The Danish Childhood Obesity Biobank) that have emerged since it began in 2007. They were presented, along with a meta-analysis of much of their work, at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2022.

“When comparing children with and without overweight, there were only barely significant differences among the preschool children,” said investigator Christine Frithioff-Bøjsøe, MD, but in contrast, “the school children with overweight exhibited significantly higher systolic blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and higher HDL cholesterol,” among other markers, she noted.

“Detection needs to start as early as age 2-5 years because if you wait just a few years longer these children will show early signs of disease starting to take hold. This could provide a critical window to detect and manage overweight,” said Frithioff-Bøjsøe, PhD, of the Children’s Obesity Clinic, Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, Denmark.

Asked to comment, Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics, codirector, University of Minnesota Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine in Minneapolis, said: “Recent results from HOLBAEK highlight the critical importance of identifying obesity early in life, before its complications spring up.

“Ideally, we should be in the business of managing and reducing excess adiposity as soon as it surfaces with the goal of preventing the onset of cardiometabolic risk factors, not watchful waiting and hoping for the best.”
 

Routine dental visits checked overweight

In the newest study, the researchers trained dental assistants to measure weight and height and carried out body mass index assessments during routine appointments.

A total of 335 preschool and 657 school-age children were recruited for the study. Of these, 40% attended additional hospital-based examinations including blood pressure measurement and a blood sample. Children were reexamined approximately 1 year later.

Systolic blood pressure, for example, was significantly higher in 6- to 8-year-olds with overweight compared to those of normal weight (P = .001). There was no significant difference between systolic blood pressure of 2.5- to 5-year-olds without and with overweight.

Likewise, with insulin resistance, there was no significant difference between preschoolers with and without overweight. However, in schoolchildren, homoeostasis model of assessment–insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was significantly higher in those with overweight, at 2.2, compared to those without, at 0.9 (P < .001).

Also, during follow-up (around a year later), the prevalence of overweight did not change in preschool children but increased from 13.7% to 17.0% in schoolchildren.

The researchers noted that, in Europe, it is the primary health care sector that has continuous contact with the pediatric population, with the potential for early evaluation of children at risk. Their decision to use dental health care assistants to assess weight in this particular study is novel, but feasible, they observed.
 

Danish model for treating overweight and obesity is ‘game-changing’

As part of the HOLBAEK initiative, clinical data and biological samples have been collected from children and adolescents receiving treatment at The Children’s Obesity Clinic, Holbaek Hospital, using a population-based cohort as a reference group. Data have been collected on about 8,000 children and adolescents so far.

Jens-Christian Holm, PhD, along with colleague and research assistant Maria Frauland, both from Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, presented a review of the HOLBAEK studies (2007-2021) at ECO 2022. They said the results highlight the importance of taking an integrated approach to managing children and adolescents with obesity.

The review, which included 82 papers, found a wide variety of obesity-related complications already present at a young age in some of the cross-sectional studies, including dyslipidemia in 28% of children with obesity, hepatic steatosis in 31%, obstructive sleep apnea in 45%, and prehypertension or hypertension in 52%.

The family-based interventional weight management programs adopted by HOLBAEK showed a 75% reduction in the “degree of obesity,” which comprised a measure of dyslipidemia, hypertension, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea, and parental obesity.

“The HOLBAEK method is a holistic approach where we integrate everything,” Dr. Holm told this news organization.

Ms. Frauland said: “The HOLBAEK study has provided important insights into childhood overweight. It has highlighted that obesity is a serious multisystem disease that can be managed and treated effectively, reducing the degree of overweight and improving overweight-related complications.”

Dr. Kelly, the U.S. pediatrician, applauded the HOLBAEK philosophy, which emphasizes that obesity is not the fault of the child or parent, but rather the manifestation of dysregulated energy metabolism. “The recognition that obesity is a biologically driven, chronic, refractory, and relapsing disease is interwoven into the approach, which shifts the responsibility to the care provider for ensuring positive outcomes of treatment.

“Highlighting this fact to the parents and child can be game-changing since it removes the blame and shame associated with obesity and unburdens the family by framing the problem in a different light,” Dr. Kelly stressed.

Dr. Frithioff-Bøjsøe has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holm has an obesity management company called Holm. Dr. Kelly serves as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim and receives donated drug/placebo from Vivus for a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Signs of cardiometabolic damage in children who are overweight appear as early as 6-8 years of age, but were not evident in preschoolers, providing a window of opportunity for intervention, show the latest results from a long-running Danish study of childhood weight.

The proportion of children who were overweight (nearly 14% in 2015) was similar between the two groups – those of preschool age (2-5 years) and school age (6-8 years) – but only the latter showed significant signs of cardiometabolic abnormalities.

The results, published in Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, are the latest in a series of many findings from the HOLBAEK study (formerly known as The Danish Childhood Obesity Biobank) that have emerged since it began in 2007. They were presented, along with a meta-analysis of much of their work, at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2022.

“When comparing children with and without overweight, there were only barely significant differences among the preschool children,” said investigator Christine Frithioff-Bøjsøe, MD, but in contrast, “the school children with overweight exhibited significantly higher systolic blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and higher HDL cholesterol,” among other markers, she noted.

“Detection needs to start as early as age 2-5 years because if you wait just a few years longer these children will show early signs of disease starting to take hold. This could provide a critical window to detect and manage overweight,” said Frithioff-Bøjsøe, PhD, of the Children’s Obesity Clinic, Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, Denmark.

Asked to comment, Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics, codirector, University of Minnesota Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine in Minneapolis, said: “Recent results from HOLBAEK highlight the critical importance of identifying obesity early in life, before its complications spring up.

“Ideally, we should be in the business of managing and reducing excess adiposity as soon as it surfaces with the goal of preventing the onset of cardiometabolic risk factors, not watchful waiting and hoping for the best.”
 

Routine dental visits checked overweight

In the newest study, the researchers trained dental assistants to measure weight and height and carried out body mass index assessments during routine appointments.

A total of 335 preschool and 657 school-age children were recruited for the study. Of these, 40% attended additional hospital-based examinations including blood pressure measurement and a blood sample. Children were reexamined approximately 1 year later.

Systolic blood pressure, for example, was significantly higher in 6- to 8-year-olds with overweight compared to those of normal weight (P = .001). There was no significant difference between systolic blood pressure of 2.5- to 5-year-olds without and with overweight.

Likewise, with insulin resistance, there was no significant difference between preschoolers with and without overweight. However, in schoolchildren, homoeostasis model of assessment–insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was significantly higher in those with overweight, at 2.2, compared to those without, at 0.9 (P < .001).

Also, during follow-up (around a year later), the prevalence of overweight did not change in preschool children but increased from 13.7% to 17.0% in schoolchildren.

The researchers noted that, in Europe, it is the primary health care sector that has continuous contact with the pediatric population, with the potential for early evaluation of children at risk. Their decision to use dental health care assistants to assess weight in this particular study is novel, but feasible, they observed.
 

Danish model for treating overweight and obesity is ‘game-changing’

As part of the HOLBAEK initiative, clinical data and biological samples have been collected from children and adolescents receiving treatment at The Children’s Obesity Clinic, Holbaek Hospital, using a population-based cohort as a reference group. Data have been collected on about 8,000 children and adolescents so far.

Jens-Christian Holm, PhD, along with colleague and research assistant Maria Frauland, both from Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, presented a review of the HOLBAEK studies (2007-2021) at ECO 2022. They said the results highlight the importance of taking an integrated approach to managing children and adolescents with obesity.

The review, which included 82 papers, found a wide variety of obesity-related complications already present at a young age in some of the cross-sectional studies, including dyslipidemia in 28% of children with obesity, hepatic steatosis in 31%, obstructive sleep apnea in 45%, and prehypertension or hypertension in 52%.

The family-based interventional weight management programs adopted by HOLBAEK showed a 75% reduction in the “degree of obesity,” which comprised a measure of dyslipidemia, hypertension, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea, and parental obesity.

“The HOLBAEK method is a holistic approach where we integrate everything,” Dr. Holm told this news organization.

Ms. Frauland said: “The HOLBAEK study has provided important insights into childhood overweight. It has highlighted that obesity is a serious multisystem disease that can be managed and treated effectively, reducing the degree of overweight and improving overweight-related complications.”

Dr. Kelly, the U.S. pediatrician, applauded the HOLBAEK philosophy, which emphasizes that obesity is not the fault of the child or parent, but rather the manifestation of dysregulated energy metabolism. “The recognition that obesity is a biologically driven, chronic, refractory, and relapsing disease is interwoven into the approach, which shifts the responsibility to the care provider for ensuring positive outcomes of treatment.

“Highlighting this fact to the parents and child can be game-changing since it removes the blame and shame associated with obesity and unburdens the family by framing the problem in a different light,” Dr. Kelly stressed.

Dr. Frithioff-Bøjsøe has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holm has an obesity management company called Holm. Dr. Kelly serves as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim and receives donated drug/placebo from Vivus for a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Signs of cardiometabolic damage in children who are overweight appear as early as 6-8 years of age, but were not evident in preschoolers, providing a window of opportunity for intervention, show the latest results from a long-running Danish study of childhood weight.

The proportion of children who were overweight (nearly 14% in 2015) was similar between the two groups – those of preschool age (2-5 years) and school age (6-8 years) – but only the latter showed significant signs of cardiometabolic abnormalities.

The results, published in Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, are the latest in a series of many findings from the HOLBAEK study (formerly known as The Danish Childhood Obesity Biobank) that have emerged since it began in 2007. They were presented, along with a meta-analysis of much of their work, at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2022.

“When comparing children with and without overweight, there were only barely significant differences among the preschool children,” said investigator Christine Frithioff-Bøjsøe, MD, but in contrast, “the school children with overweight exhibited significantly higher systolic blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and higher HDL cholesterol,” among other markers, she noted.

“Detection needs to start as early as age 2-5 years because if you wait just a few years longer these children will show early signs of disease starting to take hold. This could provide a critical window to detect and manage overweight,” said Frithioff-Bøjsøe, PhD, of the Children’s Obesity Clinic, Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, Denmark.

Asked to comment, Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics, codirector, University of Minnesota Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine in Minneapolis, said: “Recent results from HOLBAEK highlight the critical importance of identifying obesity early in life, before its complications spring up.

“Ideally, we should be in the business of managing and reducing excess adiposity as soon as it surfaces with the goal of preventing the onset of cardiometabolic risk factors, not watchful waiting and hoping for the best.”
 

Routine dental visits checked overweight

In the newest study, the researchers trained dental assistants to measure weight and height and carried out body mass index assessments during routine appointments.

A total of 335 preschool and 657 school-age children were recruited for the study. Of these, 40% attended additional hospital-based examinations including blood pressure measurement and a blood sample. Children were reexamined approximately 1 year later.

Systolic blood pressure, for example, was significantly higher in 6- to 8-year-olds with overweight compared to those of normal weight (P = .001). There was no significant difference between systolic blood pressure of 2.5- to 5-year-olds without and with overweight.

Likewise, with insulin resistance, there was no significant difference between preschoolers with and without overweight. However, in schoolchildren, homoeostasis model of assessment–insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was significantly higher in those with overweight, at 2.2, compared to those without, at 0.9 (P < .001).

Also, during follow-up (around a year later), the prevalence of overweight did not change in preschool children but increased from 13.7% to 17.0% in schoolchildren.

The researchers noted that, in Europe, it is the primary health care sector that has continuous contact with the pediatric population, with the potential for early evaluation of children at risk. Their decision to use dental health care assistants to assess weight in this particular study is novel, but feasible, they observed.
 

Danish model for treating overweight and obesity is ‘game-changing’

As part of the HOLBAEK initiative, clinical data and biological samples have been collected from children and adolescents receiving treatment at The Children’s Obesity Clinic, Holbaek Hospital, using a population-based cohort as a reference group. Data have been collected on about 8,000 children and adolescents so far.

Jens-Christian Holm, PhD, along with colleague and research assistant Maria Frauland, both from Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, presented a review of the HOLBAEK studies (2007-2021) at ECO 2022. They said the results highlight the importance of taking an integrated approach to managing children and adolescents with obesity.

The review, which included 82 papers, found a wide variety of obesity-related complications already present at a young age in some of the cross-sectional studies, including dyslipidemia in 28% of children with obesity, hepatic steatosis in 31%, obstructive sleep apnea in 45%, and prehypertension or hypertension in 52%.

The family-based interventional weight management programs adopted by HOLBAEK showed a 75% reduction in the “degree of obesity,” which comprised a measure of dyslipidemia, hypertension, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea, and parental obesity.

“The HOLBAEK method is a holistic approach where we integrate everything,” Dr. Holm told this news organization.

Ms. Frauland said: “The HOLBAEK study has provided important insights into childhood overweight. It has highlighted that obesity is a serious multisystem disease that can be managed and treated effectively, reducing the degree of overweight and improving overweight-related complications.”

Dr. Kelly, the U.S. pediatrician, applauded the HOLBAEK philosophy, which emphasizes that obesity is not the fault of the child or parent, but rather the manifestation of dysregulated energy metabolism. “The recognition that obesity is a biologically driven, chronic, refractory, and relapsing disease is interwoven into the approach, which shifts the responsibility to the care provider for ensuring positive outcomes of treatment.

“Highlighting this fact to the parents and child can be game-changing since it removes the blame and shame associated with obesity and unburdens the family by framing the problem in a different light,” Dr. Kelly stressed.

Dr. Frithioff-Bøjsøe has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holm has an obesity management company called Holm. Dr. Kelly serves as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim and receives donated drug/placebo from Vivus for a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

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

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

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

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

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

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

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

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

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

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has issued the first statement on best practices for percutaneous axillary arterial access and training.

The position statement helps fill a gap amid increasing use of transaxillary access as an alternative to the femoral route for large-bore transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and mechanical circulatory support.

“The need for alternative access has increased as we are using more and more TAVR for our elderly population, and EVAR has also increased,” writing committee chair Arnold H. Seto, MD, Long Beach VA Health Care System (California) said in an interview. “There’s also a set of patients who require balloon pumps for a prolonged period, and people were using balloon pumps from the axillary approach, which were not custom-designed for that purpose.”

He noted that the evidence base leans heavily on case reports and case series, and that they were approached for guidance by a vendor developing a balloon pump specific to axillary access. “So that helped spur all of us to get together and decide to write up something on this topic, which was developing, but was certainly picking up steam rapidly.”

The statement was published in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and it reflects the consensus of experts in heart failure, interventional cardiology and radiology, and cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. It reviews anatomic considerations and risks for percutaneous axillary access and suggests techniques for insertion, closure, and complication management.

Although the femoral artery is the most frequent access site for percutaneous large-bore procedures, the document notes that this approach may be limited in 13%-20% of patients because of prior surgeries or severe aortoiliac and/or iliofemoral atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity, or calcification.

“Absolutely, the femoral should be the predominant access site,” Dr. Seto said. Whenever there is a compromised femoral artery, “the axillary artery, which is rarely involved with atherosclerosis, makes for the most optimal alternative access. Other forms of alternative access, including transcaval and transcarotid, are possible but have their own issues and difficulties.”

Axillary access has traditionally been done through an open surgical approach, which allows for direct puncture, primary arterial repair, or placement of a sidearm conduit. Percutaneous transaxillary access avoids a surgical incision and general anesthesia and, theoretically, reduces the risk of infection, he said. It also allows for better mobility for patients, for example, who may have a balloon pump in place for weeks or even a month when waiting for a bridge to transplant.

In terms of technique, key recommendations include:

• Gaining access preferably through the left axillary
• Inserting the needle directly through the pectoralis minor into the second segment of the axillary artery
• Using a shallow-needle angle of 25-30 degrees to improve access success and decrease sheath malformation, kinking, bleeding, or vessel perforation
• Using micropuncture needles to minimize trauma to adjacent tissues
• Abducting the patient’s arm to 45-90 degrees to reduce tortuosity
• Using angiographic and ultrasound techniques to optimize vascular access

The latter point was the one area of debate among the writing committee, Dr. Seto observed. “That is one of the controversies: Should we make ultrasound mandatory? ... Everybody agreed that it can be quite useful and was likely to be useful because of its success in every other access area,” he said. “But in the absence of randomized evidence, we couldn’t make it mandatory or a strong recommendation. We just had to make it one of several options for the operator.”

The document highlights the need for familiarity with potential axillary artery complications and their management, noting that the axillary is more fragile than the femoral artery and, thus, potentially more prone to complications during instrumentation.

Data from the ARMS study in 102 patients undergoing transaxillary access for mechanical hemodynamic support reported 17 procedural complications, including 10 minor access site bleeding events, one stroke, and one pseudoaneurysm. A small study of 25 complex EVAR procedures reported a perioperative access complication rate of 8%, including one axillary artery dissection and one stenosis.

“Despite the brachial plexus being around there, there’s actually rare reports of neurologic injury and certainly none that have been permanent,” Dr. Seto said. “Also, stroke risk is probably more related to your device size and type of device rather than the approach itself.”

A significant amount of the paper is also devoted to training and privileging suggestions with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary team. The writing group recommends graduate medical education programs develop training curricula in percutaneous axillary artery access.

Those already in practice should participate in a formal training program that focuses on axillary artery anatomy, training in large bore access and closure devices, and didactic training in imaging modalities as applied to the axillary artery. Training can occur hands-on or using online simulations.

They also recommend outlining the potential need or role for proctoring and call for ongoing formal professional monitoring programs to evaluate operator outcomes using local or registry data.

“From a privileging standpoint, it was important for hospitals to be equally fair, regardless of the specialty that a requesting practitioner came from,” Dr. Seto said. “In other words, treat the vascular surgeons and interventional cardiologists and radiologists equally in terms of who has the privilege to do transaxillary access.”

The SCAI position statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Vascular & Endovascular Surgery Society.

Dr. Seto reported receiving honoraria from Getinge prior to initiation of the document. Disclosures for the rest of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has issued the first statement on best practices for percutaneous axillary arterial access and training.

The position statement helps fill a gap amid increasing use of transaxillary access as an alternative to the femoral route for large-bore transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and mechanical circulatory support.

“The need for alternative access has increased as we are using more and more TAVR for our elderly population, and EVAR has also increased,” writing committee chair Arnold H. Seto, MD, Long Beach VA Health Care System (California) said in an interview. “There’s also a set of patients who require balloon pumps for a prolonged period, and people were using balloon pumps from the axillary approach, which were not custom-designed for that purpose.”

He noted that the evidence base leans heavily on case reports and case series, and that they were approached for guidance by a vendor developing a balloon pump specific to axillary access. “So that helped spur all of us to get together and decide to write up something on this topic, which was developing, but was certainly picking up steam rapidly.”

The statement was published in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and it reflects the consensus of experts in heart failure, interventional cardiology and radiology, and cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. It reviews anatomic considerations and risks for percutaneous axillary access and suggests techniques for insertion, closure, and complication management.

Although the femoral artery is the most frequent access site for percutaneous large-bore procedures, the document notes that this approach may be limited in 13%-20% of patients because of prior surgeries or severe aortoiliac and/or iliofemoral atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity, or calcification.

“Absolutely, the femoral should be the predominant access site,” Dr. Seto said. Whenever there is a compromised femoral artery, “the axillary artery, which is rarely involved with atherosclerosis, makes for the most optimal alternative access. Other forms of alternative access, including transcaval and transcarotid, are possible but have their own issues and difficulties.”

Axillary access has traditionally been done through an open surgical approach, which allows for direct puncture, primary arterial repair, or placement of a sidearm conduit. Percutaneous transaxillary access avoids a surgical incision and general anesthesia and, theoretically, reduces the risk of infection, he said. It also allows for better mobility for patients, for example, who may have a balloon pump in place for weeks or even a month when waiting for a bridge to transplant.

In terms of technique, key recommendations include:

• Gaining access preferably through the left axillary
• Inserting the needle directly through the pectoralis minor into the second segment of the axillary artery
• Using a shallow-needle angle of 25-30 degrees to improve access success and decrease sheath malformation, kinking, bleeding, or vessel perforation
• Using micropuncture needles to minimize trauma to adjacent tissues
• Abducting the patient’s arm to 45-90 degrees to reduce tortuosity
• Using angiographic and ultrasound techniques to optimize vascular access

The latter point was the one area of debate among the writing committee, Dr. Seto observed. “That is one of the controversies: Should we make ultrasound mandatory? ... Everybody agreed that it can be quite useful and was likely to be useful because of its success in every other access area,” he said. “But in the absence of randomized evidence, we couldn’t make it mandatory or a strong recommendation. We just had to make it one of several options for the operator.”

The document highlights the need for familiarity with potential axillary artery complications and their management, noting that the axillary is more fragile than the femoral artery and, thus, potentially more prone to complications during instrumentation.

Data from the ARMS study in 102 patients undergoing transaxillary access for mechanical hemodynamic support reported 17 procedural complications, including 10 minor access site bleeding events, one stroke, and one pseudoaneurysm. A small study of 25 complex EVAR procedures reported a perioperative access complication rate of 8%, including one axillary artery dissection and one stenosis.

“Despite the brachial plexus being around there, there’s actually rare reports of neurologic injury and certainly none that have been permanent,” Dr. Seto said. “Also, stroke risk is probably more related to your device size and type of device rather than the approach itself.”

A significant amount of the paper is also devoted to training and privileging suggestions with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary team. The writing group recommends graduate medical education programs develop training curricula in percutaneous axillary artery access.

Those already in practice should participate in a formal training program that focuses on axillary artery anatomy, training in large bore access and closure devices, and didactic training in imaging modalities as applied to the axillary artery. Training can occur hands-on or using online simulations.

They also recommend outlining the potential need or role for proctoring and call for ongoing formal professional monitoring programs to evaluate operator outcomes using local or registry data.

“From a privileging standpoint, it was important for hospitals to be equally fair, regardless of the specialty that a requesting practitioner came from,” Dr. Seto said. “In other words, treat the vascular surgeons and interventional cardiologists and radiologists equally in terms of who has the privilege to do transaxillary access.”

The SCAI position statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Vascular & Endovascular Surgery Society.

Dr. Seto reported receiving honoraria from Getinge prior to initiation of the document. Disclosures for the rest of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has issued the first statement on best practices for percutaneous axillary arterial access and training.

The position statement helps fill a gap amid increasing use of transaxillary access as an alternative to the femoral route for large-bore transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and mechanical circulatory support.

“The need for alternative access has increased as we are using more and more TAVR for our elderly population, and EVAR has also increased,” writing committee chair Arnold H. Seto, MD, Long Beach VA Health Care System (California) said in an interview. “There’s also a set of patients who require balloon pumps for a prolonged period, and people were using balloon pumps from the axillary approach, which were not custom-designed for that purpose.”

He noted that the evidence base leans heavily on case reports and case series, and that they were approached for guidance by a vendor developing a balloon pump specific to axillary access. “So that helped spur all of us to get together and decide to write up something on this topic, which was developing, but was certainly picking up steam rapidly.”

The statement was published in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and it reflects the consensus of experts in heart failure, interventional cardiology and radiology, and cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. It reviews anatomic considerations and risks for percutaneous axillary access and suggests techniques for insertion, closure, and complication management.

Although the femoral artery is the most frequent access site for percutaneous large-bore procedures, the document notes that this approach may be limited in 13%-20% of patients because of prior surgeries or severe aortoiliac and/or iliofemoral atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity, or calcification.

“Absolutely, the femoral should be the predominant access site,” Dr. Seto said. Whenever there is a compromised femoral artery, “the axillary artery, which is rarely involved with atherosclerosis, makes for the most optimal alternative access. Other forms of alternative access, including transcaval and transcarotid, are possible but have their own issues and difficulties.”

Axillary access has traditionally been done through an open surgical approach, which allows for direct puncture, primary arterial repair, or placement of a sidearm conduit. Percutaneous transaxillary access avoids a surgical incision and general anesthesia and, theoretically, reduces the risk of infection, he said. It also allows for better mobility for patients, for example, who may have a balloon pump in place for weeks or even a month when waiting for a bridge to transplant.

In terms of technique, key recommendations include:

• Gaining access preferably through the left axillary
• Inserting the needle directly through the pectoralis minor into the second segment of the axillary artery
• Using a shallow-needle angle of 25-30 degrees to improve access success and decrease sheath malformation, kinking, bleeding, or vessel perforation
• Using micropuncture needles to minimize trauma to adjacent tissues
• Abducting the patient’s arm to 45-90 degrees to reduce tortuosity
• Using angiographic and ultrasound techniques to optimize vascular access

The latter point was the one area of debate among the writing committee, Dr. Seto observed. “That is one of the controversies: Should we make ultrasound mandatory? ... Everybody agreed that it can be quite useful and was likely to be useful because of its success in every other access area,” he said. “But in the absence of randomized evidence, we couldn’t make it mandatory or a strong recommendation. We just had to make it one of several options for the operator.”

The document highlights the need for familiarity with potential axillary artery complications and their management, noting that the axillary is more fragile than the femoral artery and, thus, potentially more prone to complications during instrumentation.

Data from the ARMS study in 102 patients undergoing transaxillary access for mechanical hemodynamic support reported 17 procedural complications, including 10 minor access site bleeding events, one stroke, and one pseudoaneurysm. A small study of 25 complex EVAR procedures reported a perioperative access complication rate of 8%, including one axillary artery dissection and one stenosis.

“Despite the brachial plexus being around there, there’s actually rare reports of neurologic injury and certainly none that have been permanent,” Dr. Seto said. “Also, stroke risk is probably more related to your device size and type of device rather than the approach itself.”

A significant amount of the paper is also devoted to training and privileging suggestions with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary team. The writing group recommends graduate medical education programs develop training curricula in percutaneous axillary artery access.

Those already in practice should participate in a formal training program that focuses on axillary artery anatomy, training in large bore access and closure devices, and didactic training in imaging modalities as applied to the axillary artery. Training can occur hands-on or using online simulations.

They also recommend outlining the potential need or role for proctoring and call for ongoing formal professional monitoring programs to evaluate operator outcomes using local or registry data.

“From a privileging standpoint, it was important for hospitals to be equally fair, regardless of the specialty that a requesting practitioner came from,” Dr. Seto said. “In other words, treat the vascular surgeons and interventional cardiologists and radiologists equally in terms of who has the privilege to do transaxillary access.”

The SCAI position statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Vascular & Endovascular Surgery Society.

Dr. Seto reported receiving honoraria from Getinge prior to initiation of the document. Disclosures for the rest of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

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

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Although lipoprotein(a) is causally related to coronary artery disease and aortic valve stenosis – two known risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AFib) – evidence linking Lp(a) to a causal role in the development of AFib has been lukewarm at best.

A recent Mendelian randomization study showed only a nominally significant effect of Lp(a) on AFib, whereas an ARIC substudy showed high levels of Lp(a) to be associated with elevated ischemic stroke risk but not incident AFib.

A new study that adds the heft of Mendelian randomization to large observational and genetic analyses, however, implicates Lp(a) as a potential causal mediator of AFib, independent of its known effects on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“Why this is exciting is because it shows that Lp(a) has effects beyond the arteries and beyond the aortic valve, and that provides two things,” senior author Guillaume Paré, MD, MSc, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, told this news organization.

“First, it provides a potential means to decrease the risk, because there are all these Lp(a) inhibitors in development,” he said. “But I think the other thing is that it just points to a new pathway that leads to atrial fibrillation development that could potentially be targeted with other drugs when it’s better understood. We don’t pretend that we understand the biology there, but it opens this possibility.”

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

Using data from 435,579 participants in the UK Biobank, the researchers identified 20,432 cases of incident AFib over a median of 11 years of follow-up. They also constructed a genetic risk score for Lp(a) using genetic variants within 500 kb of the LPA gene.

After common AFib risk factors were controlled for, results showed a 3% increased risk for incident AFib per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) at enrollment (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

A Mendelian randomization analysis showed a similar association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and AFib (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

To replicate the results, the investigators performed separate Mendelian randomization analyses using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) statistics from the largest GWAS of AFib involving more than 1 million participants and from the FinnGen cohort involving more than 114,000 Finnish residents.

The analyses showed a 3% increase in risk for AFib in the genome-wide study (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and an 8% increase in risk in the Finnish study (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

There was no evidence that the effect of observed or genetically predicted Lp(a) was modified by prevalent ischemic heart disease or aortic stenosis.

Further, MR analyses revealed no risk effect of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol or triglycerides on AFib.

Notably, only 39% of Lp(a) was mediated through ASCVD, suggesting that Lp(a) partly influences AFib independent of its known effect on ASCVD.

“To me, the eureka moment is when we repeated the same analysis for LDL cholesterol and it had absolutely no association with AFib,” Dr. Paré said. “Because up to that point, there was always this lingering doubt that, well, it’s because of coronary artery disease, and that’s logical. But the signal is completely flat with LDL, and we see this strong signal with Lp(a).”

Another ‘red flag’

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, senior author of the ARIC substudy and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the findings are “another red flag that lipoprotein(a) is a marker we need to pay attention to and potentially needs treatment.”

“The fact that it was Mendelian randomization does suggest that there’s a causal role,” she said. “I think the relationship is relatively modest compared to its known risk for stroke, ASCVD, coronary disease, and aortic stenosis, ... which may be why we didn’t see it in the ARIC cohort with 12,000 participants. You needed to have a million participants and 60,000 cases to see an effect here.”

Dr. Michos said she hopes the findings encourage increased testing, particularly with multiple potential treatments currently in the pipeline. She pointed out that the researchers estimated that the experimental antisense agent pelacarsen, which lowers Lp(a) by about 80%, would translate into about an 8% reduction in AFib risk, or “the same effect as 2 kg of weight loss or a 5 mm Hg reduction in blood pressure, which we do think are meaningful.”

Adding to this point in an accompanying editorial, Daniel Seung Kim, MD, PhD, and Abha Khandelwal, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, say that “moreover, reduction of Lp(a) levels would have multifactorial effects on CAD, cerebrovascular/peripheral artery disease, and AS risk.

“Therefore, approaches to reduce Lp(a) should be prioritized to further reduce the morbidity and mortality of a rapidly aging population,” they write.

The editorialists also join the researchers in calling for inclusion of AFib as a secondary outcome in ongoing Lp(a) trials, in addition to cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease.
 

Unanswered questions

As to what’s driving the risk effect of Lp(a), first author Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, PhD, also from the Population Health Research Institute, explained that in aortic stenosis, “mechanical stress increases endothelial permeability, allowing Lp(a) to infiltrate valvular tissue and induce gene expression that results in microcalcifications and cell death.”

“So, in theory, a similar sort of mechanism could be at play in atrial tissue that may lead to damage and the electrical remodeling that causes atrial fibrillation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani also noted that Lp(a) has proinflammatory properties, but added that any potential mechanisms are “speculative and require further research to disentangle.”

Dr. Paré and colleagues say follow-up studies are also warranted, noting that generalizability of the results may be limited because AFib cases were found using electronic health records in the population-scale cohorts and because few UK Biobank participants were of non-European ancestry and Lp(a) levels vary among ethnic groups.

Another limitation is that the number of kringle IV type 2 domain repeats within the LPA gene, the largest contributor to genetic variation in Lp(a), could not be directly measured. Still, 71.4% of the variation in Lp(a) was explained using the genetic risk score alone, they say.

Dr. Paré holds the Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and Cisco Systems Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Michos reports consulting for Novartis and serving on advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kim reports grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Dr. Khandelwal serves on the advisory board of Amgen and has received funding from Novartis CTQJ and Akcea.

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

Although lipoprotein(a) is causally related to coronary artery disease and aortic valve stenosis – two known risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AFib) – evidence linking Lp(a) to a causal role in the development of AFib has been lukewarm at best.

A recent Mendelian randomization study showed only a nominally significant effect of Lp(a) on AFib, whereas an ARIC substudy showed high levels of Lp(a) to be associated with elevated ischemic stroke risk but not incident AFib.

A new study that adds the heft of Mendelian randomization to large observational and genetic analyses, however, implicates Lp(a) as a potential causal mediator of AFib, independent of its known effects on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“Why this is exciting is because it shows that Lp(a) has effects beyond the arteries and beyond the aortic valve, and that provides two things,” senior author Guillaume Paré, MD, MSc, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, told this news organization.

“First, it provides a potential means to decrease the risk, because there are all these Lp(a) inhibitors in development,” he said. “But I think the other thing is that it just points to a new pathway that leads to atrial fibrillation development that could potentially be targeted with other drugs when it’s better understood. We don’t pretend that we understand the biology there, but it opens this possibility.”

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

Using data from 435,579 participants in the UK Biobank, the researchers identified 20,432 cases of incident AFib over a median of 11 years of follow-up. They also constructed a genetic risk score for Lp(a) using genetic variants within 500 kb of the LPA gene.

After common AFib risk factors were controlled for, results showed a 3% increased risk for incident AFib per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) at enrollment (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

A Mendelian randomization analysis showed a similar association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and AFib (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

To replicate the results, the investigators performed separate Mendelian randomization analyses using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) statistics from the largest GWAS of AFib involving more than 1 million participants and from the FinnGen cohort involving more than 114,000 Finnish residents.

The analyses showed a 3% increase in risk for AFib in the genome-wide study (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and an 8% increase in risk in the Finnish study (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

There was no evidence that the effect of observed or genetically predicted Lp(a) was modified by prevalent ischemic heart disease or aortic stenosis.

Further, MR analyses revealed no risk effect of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol or triglycerides on AFib.

Notably, only 39% of Lp(a) was mediated through ASCVD, suggesting that Lp(a) partly influences AFib independent of its known effect on ASCVD.

“To me, the eureka moment is when we repeated the same analysis for LDL cholesterol and it had absolutely no association with AFib,” Dr. Paré said. “Because up to that point, there was always this lingering doubt that, well, it’s because of coronary artery disease, and that’s logical. But the signal is completely flat with LDL, and we see this strong signal with Lp(a).”

Another ‘red flag’

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, senior author of the ARIC substudy and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the findings are “another red flag that lipoprotein(a) is a marker we need to pay attention to and potentially needs treatment.”

“The fact that it was Mendelian randomization does suggest that there’s a causal role,” she said. “I think the relationship is relatively modest compared to its known risk for stroke, ASCVD, coronary disease, and aortic stenosis, ... which may be why we didn’t see it in the ARIC cohort with 12,000 participants. You needed to have a million participants and 60,000 cases to see an effect here.”

Dr. Michos said she hopes the findings encourage increased testing, particularly with multiple potential treatments currently in the pipeline. She pointed out that the researchers estimated that the experimental antisense agent pelacarsen, which lowers Lp(a) by about 80%, would translate into about an 8% reduction in AFib risk, or “the same effect as 2 kg of weight loss or a 5 mm Hg reduction in blood pressure, which we do think are meaningful.”

Adding to this point in an accompanying editorial, Daniel Seung Kim, MD, PhD, and Abha Khandelwal, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, say that “moreover, reduction of Lp(a) levels would have multifactorial effects on CAD, cerebrovascular/peripheral artery disease, and AS risk.

“Therefore, approaches to reduce Lp(a) should be prioritized to further reduce the morbidity and mortality of a rapidly aging population,” they write.

The editorialists also join the researchers in calling for inclusion of AFib as a secondary outcome in ongoing Lp(a) trials, in addition to cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease.
 

Unanswered questions

As to what’s driving the risk effect of Lp(a), first author Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, PhD, also from the Population Health Research Institute, explained that in aortic stenosis, “mechanical stress increases endothelial permeability, allowing Lp(a) to infiltrate valvular tissue and induce gene expression that results in microcalcifications and cell death.”

“So, in theory, a similar sort of mechanism could be at play in atrial tissue that may lead to damage and the electrical remodeling that causes atrial fibrillation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani also noted that Lp(a) has proinflammatory properties, but added that any potential mechanisms are “speculative and require further research to disentangle.”

Dr. Paré and colleagues say follow-up studies are also warranted, noting that generalizability of the results may be limited because AFib cases were found using electronic health records in the population-scale cohorts and because few UK Biobank participants were of non-European ancestry and Lp(a) levels vary among ethnic groups.

Another limitation is that the number of kringle IV type 2 domain repeats within the LPA gene, the largest contributor to genetic variation in Lp(a), could not be directly measured. Still, 71.4% of the variation in Lp(a) was explained using the genetic risk score alone, they say.

Dr. Paré holds the Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and Cisco Systems Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Michos reports consulting for Novartis and serving on advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kim reports grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Dr. Khandelwal serves on the advisory board of Amgen and has received funding from Novartis CTQJ and Akcea.

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

Although lipoprotein(a) is causally related to coronary artery disease and aortic valve stenosis – two known risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AFib) – evidence linking Lp(a) to a causal role in the development of AFib has been lukewarm at best.

A recent Mendelian randomization study showed only a nominally significant effect of Lp(a) on AFib, whereas an ARIC substudy showed high levels of Lp(a) to be associated with elevated ischemic stroke risk but not incident AFib.

A new study that adds the heft of Mendelian randomization to large observational and genetic analyses, however, implicates Lp(a) as a potential causal mediator of AFib, independent of its known effects on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“Why this is exciting is because it shows that Lp(a) has effects beyond the arteries and beyond the aortic valve, and that provides two things,” senior author Guillaume Paré, MD, MSc, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, told this news organization.

“First, it provides a potential means to decrease the risk, because there are all these Lp(a) inhibitors in development,” he said. “But I think the other thing is that it just points to a new pathway that leads to atrial fibrillation development that could potentially be targeted with other drugs when it’s better understood. We don’t pretend that we understand the biology there, but it opens this possibility.”

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

Using data from 435,579 participants in the UK Biobank, the researchers identified 20,432 cases of incident AFib over a median of 11 years of follow-up. They also constructed a genetic risk score for Lp(a) using genetic variants within 500 kb of the LPA gene.

After common AFib risk factors were controlled for, results showed a 3% increased risk for incident AFib per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) at enrollment (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

A Mendelian randomization analysis showed a similar association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and AFib (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

To replicate the results, the investigators performed separate Mendelian randomization analyses using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) statistics from the largest GWAS of AFib involving more than 1 million participants and from the FinnGen cohort involving more than 114,000 Finnish residents.

The analyses showed a 3% increase in risk for AFib in the genome-wide study (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and an 8% increase in risk in the Finnish study (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

There was no evidence that the effect of observed or genetically predicted Lp(a) was modified by prevalent ischemic heart disease or aortic stenosis.

Further, MR analyses revealed no risk effect of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol or triglycerides on AFib.

Notably, only 39% of Lp(a) was mediated through ASCVD, suggesting that Lp(a) partly influences AFib independent of its known effect on ASCVD.

“To me, the eureka moment is when we repeated the same analysis for LDL cholesterol and it had absolutely no association with AFib,” Dr. Paré said. “Because up to that point, there was always this lingering doubt that, well, it’s because of coronary artery disease, and that’s logical. But the signal is completely flat with LDL, and we see this strong signal with Lp(a).”

Another ‘red flag’

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, senior author of the ARIC substudy and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the findings are “another red flag that lipoprotein(a) is a marker we need to pay attention to and potentially needs treatment.”

“The fact that it was Mendelian randomization does suggest that there’s a causal role,” she said. “I think the relationship is relatively modest compared to its known risk for stroke, ASCVD, coronary disease, and aortic stenosis, ... which may be why we didn’t see it in the ARIC cohort with 12,000 participants. You needed to have a million participants and 60,000 cases to see an effect here.”

Dr. Michos said she hopes the findings encourage increased testing, particularly with multiple potential treatments currently in the pipeline. She pointed out that the researchers estimated that the experimental antisense agent pelacarsen, which lowers Lp(a) by about 80%, would translate into about an 8% reduction in AFib risk, or “the same effect as 2 kg of weight loss or a 5 mm Hg reduction in blood pressure, which we do think are meaningful.”

Adding to this point in an accompanying editorial, Daniel Seung Kim, MD, PhD, and Abha Khandelwal, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, say that “moreover, reduction of Lp(a) levels would have multifactorial effects on CAD, cerebrovascular/peripheral artery disease, and AS risk.

“Therefore, approaches to reduce Lp(a) should be prioritized to further reduce the morbidity and mortality of a rapidly aging population,” they write.

The editorialists also join the researchers in calling for inclusion of AFib as a secondary outcome in ongoing Lp(a) trials, in addition to cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease.
 

Unanswered questions

As to what’s driving the risk effect of Lp(a), first author Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, PhD, also from the Population Health Research Institute, explained that in aortic stenosis, “mechanical stress increases endothelial permeability, allowing Lp(a) to infiltrate valvular tissue and induce gene expression that results in microcalcifications and cell death.”

“So, in theory, a similar sort of mechanism could be at play in atrial tissue that may lead to damage and the electrical remodeling that causes atrial fibrillation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani also noted that Lp(a) has proinflammatory properties, but added that any potential mechanisms are “speculative and require further research to disentangle.”

Dr. Paré and colleagues say follow-up studies are also warranted, noting that generalizability of the results may be limited because AFib cases were found using electronic health records in the population-scale cohorts and because few UK Biobank participants were of non-European ancestry and Lp(a) levels vary among ethnic groups.

Another limitation is that the number of kringle IV type 2 domain repeats within the LPA gene, the largest contributor to genetic variation in Lp(a), could not be directly measured. Still, 71.4% of the variation in Lp(a) was explained using the genetic risk score alone, they say.

Dr. Paré holds the Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and Cisco Systems Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Michos reports consulting for Novartis and serving on advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kim reports grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Dr. Khandelwal serves on the advisory board of Amgen and has received funding from Novartis CTQJ and Akcea.

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary cohort of patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary cohort of patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary cohort of patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A network meta-analysis of 42 clinical trials concludes that rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin are the statins most effective at lowering non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in people with diabetes and at risk for cardiovascular disease.

The analysis focused on the efficacy of statin treatment on reducing non-HDL-C, as opposed to reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has traditionally been used as a surrogate to determine cardiovascular disease risk from hypercholesterolemia.

“The National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States recommends that LDL-C values should be used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease related to lipoproteins,” lead author Alexander Hodkinson, MD, senior National Institute for Health Research fellow, University of Manchester, England, told this news organization.

“But we believe that non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol is more strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease, because non-HDL-C combines all the bad types of cholesterol, which LDL-C misses, so it could be a better tool than LDL-C for assessing CVD risk and effects of treatment. We already knew which of the statins reduce LDL-C, but we wanted to know which ones reduced non-HDL-C; hence the reason for our study,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

The findings were published online  in BMJ.

In April 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom updated guidelines for adults with diabetes to recommend that non-HDL-C should replace LDL-C as the primary target for reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease with lipid-lowering treatment.

Currently, NICE is alone in its recommendation. Other international guidelines do not have a non-HDL-C target and use LDL-C reduction instead. These include guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the National Lipid Association.

Non–HDL-C is simple to calculate and can easily be done by clinicians by subtracting HDL-C from the total cholesterol level, he added.

This analysis compared the effectiveness of different statins at different intensities in reducing levels of non-HDL-C in 42 randomized controlled trials that included 20,193 adults with diabetes.

Compared with placebo, rosuvastatin, given at moderate- and high-intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin at high-intensity doses, were the best at lowering levels of non-HDL-C over an average treatment period of 12 weeks.

High-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.31 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.39 to –1.21). Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.27 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.00 to –1.49).

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 2.26 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.99 to –1.51).

High-intensity atorvastatin led to a 2.20 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.69 to –1.70).

Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C, the researchers noted.

In 4,670 patients who were at great risk for a major cardiovascular event, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (1.98 mmol/L; 95% credible interval, –4.16 to 0.26).

In addition, high-intensity simvastatin and rosuvastatin were the most effective in reducing LDL-C.

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 1.93 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.63 to –1.21), and high-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 1.76 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.37 to –1.15).

In four studies, significant reductions in nonfatal myocardial infarction were shown for atorvastatin at moderate intensity, compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-.76). No significant differences were seen for discontinuations, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.

“We hope our findings will help guide clinicians on statin selection itself, and what types of doses they should be giving patients. These results support using NICE’s new policy guidelines on cholesterol monitoring, using this non-HDL-C measure, which contains all the bad types of cholesterol for patients with diabetes,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

“This study further emphasizes what we have known about the benefit of statin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Deedwania and others have published data on patients with diabetes that showed that treatment with high-intensity atorvastatin was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events.

“Here they use non-HDL cholesterol as a target. The NICE guidelines are the only guidelines looking at non-HDL cholesterol; however, all guidelines suggest an LDL to be less than 70 in all people with diabetes, and for those with recent acute coronary syndromes, the latest evidence suggests the LDL should actually be less than 50,” said Dr. Deedwania, spokesperson for the AHA and ACC.

As far as which measure to use, he believes both are useful. “It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, in my opinion. The societies have not recommended non-HDL cholesterol and it’s easier to stay with what is readily available for clinicians, and using LDL cholesterol is still okay. The results of this analysis are confirmatory, in that looking at non-HDL cholesterol gives results very similar to what these statins have shown for their effect on LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Non-HDL cholesterol a better marker?

For Robert Rosenson, MD, director of metabolism and lipids at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, non-HDL cholesterol is becoming an important marker of risk for several reasons.

“The focus on LDL cholesterol has been due to the causal relationship of LDL with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but in the last few decades, non-HDL has emerged because more people are overweight, have insulin resistance, and have diabetes,” Dr. Rosenson told this news organization. “In those situations, the LDL cholesterol underrepresents the risk of the LDL particles. With insulin resistance, the particles become more triglycerides and less cholesterol, so on a per-particle basis, you need to get more LDL particles to get to a certain LDL cholesterol concentration.”

Non-HDL cholesterol testing does not require fasting, another advantage of using it to monitor cholesterol, he added.

What is often forgotten is that moderate- to high-intensity statins have very good triglyceride-lowering effects, Dr. Rosenson said.

“This article highlights that, by using higher doses, you get more triglyceride-lowering. Hopefully, this will get practitioners to recognize that non-HDL cholesterol is a better predictor of risk in people with diabetes,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Hodkinson, Dr. Rosenson, and Dr. Deedwania report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A network meta-analysis of 42 clinical trials concludes that rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin are the statins most effective at lowering non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in people with diabetes and at risk for cardiovascular disease.

The analysis focused on the efficacy of statin treatment on reducing non-HDL-C, as opposed to reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has traditionally been used as a surrogate to determine cardiovascular disease risk from hypercholesterolemia.

“The National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States recommends that LDL-C values should be used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease related to lipoproteins,” lead author Alexander Hodkinson, MD, senior National Institute for Health Research fellow, University of Manchester, England, told this news organization.

“But we believe that non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol is more strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease, because non-HDL-C combines all the bad types of cholesterol, which LDL-C misses, so it could be a better tool than LDL-C for assessing CVD risk and effects of treatment. We already knew which of the statins reduce LDL-C, but we wanted to know which ones reduced non-HDL-C; hence the reason for our study,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

The findings were published online  in BMJ.

In April 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom updated guidelines for adults with diabetes to recommend that non-HDL-C should replace LDL-C as the primary target for reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease with lipid-lowering treatment.

Currently, NICE is alone in its recommendation. Other international guidelines do not have a non-HDL-C target and use LDL-C reduction instead. These include guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the National Lipid Association.

Non–HDL-C is simple to calculate and can easily be done by clinicians by subtracting HDL-C from the total cholesterol level, he added.

This analysis compared the effectiveness of different statins at different intensities in reducing levels of non-HDL-C in 42 randomized controlled trials that included 20,193 adults with diabetes.

Compared with placebo, rosuvastatin, given at moderate- and high-intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin at high-intensity doses, were the best at lowering levels of non-HDL-C over an average treatment period of 12 weeks.

High-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.31 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.39 to –1.21). Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.27 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.00 to –1.49).

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 2.26 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.99 to –1.51).

High-intensity atorvastatin led to a 2.20 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.69 to –1.70).

Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C, the researchers noted.

In 4,670 patients who were at great risk for a major cardiovascular event, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (1.98 mmol/L; 95% credible interval, –4.16 to 0.26).

In addition, high-intensity simvastatin and rosuvastatin were the most effective in reducing LDL-C.

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 1.93 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.63 to –1.21), and high-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 1.76 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.37 to –1.15).

In four studies, significant reductions in nonfatal myocardial infarction were shown for atorvastatin at moderate intensity, compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-.76). No significant differences were seen for discontinuations, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.

“We hope our findings will help guide clinicians on statin selection itself, and what types of doses they should be giving patients. These results support using NICE’s new policy guidelines on cholesterol monitoring, using this non-HDL-C measure, which contains all the bad types of cholesterol for patients with diabetes,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

“This study further emphasizes what we have known about the benefit of statin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Deedwania and others have published data on patients with diabetes that showed that treatment with high-intensity atorvastatin was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events.

“Here they use non-HDL cholesterol as a target. The NICE guidelines are the only guidelines looking at non-HDL cholesterol; however, all guidelines suggest an LDL to be less than 70 in all people with diabetes, and for those with recent acute coronary syndromes, the latest evidence suggests the LDL should actually be less than 50,” said Dr. Deedwania, spokesperson for the AHA and ACC.

As far as which measure to use, he believes both are useful. “It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, in my opinion. The societies have not recommended non-HDL cholesterol and it’s easier to stay with what is readily available for clinicians, and using LDL cholesterol is still okay. The results of this analysis are confirmatory, in that looking at non-HDL cholesterol gives results very similar to what these statins have shown for their effect on LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Non-HDL cholesterol a better marker?

For Robert Rosenson, MD, director of metabolism and lipids at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, non-HDL cholesterol is becoming an important marker of risk for several reasons.

“The focus on LDL cholesterol has been due to the causal relationship of LDL with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but in the last few decades, non-HDL has emerged because more people are overweight, have insulin resistance, and have diabetes,” Dr. Rosenson told this news organization. “In those situations, the LDL cholesterol underrepresents the risk of the LDL particles. With insulin resistance, the particles become more triglycerides and less cholesterol, so on a per-particle basis, you need to get more LDL particles to get to a certain LDL cholesterol concentration.”

Non-HDL cholesterol testing does not require fasting, another advantage of using it to monitor cholesterol, he added.

What is often forgotten is that moderate- to high-intensity statins have very good triglyceride-lowering effects, Dr. Rosenson said.

“This article highlights that, by using higher doses, you get more triglyceride-lowering. Hopefully, this will get practitioners to recognize that non-HDL cholesterol is a better predictor of risk in people with diabetes,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Hodkinson, Dr. Rosenson, and Dr. Deedwania report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A network meta-analysis of 42 clinical trials concludes that rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin are the statins most effective at lowering non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in people with diabetes and at risk for cardiovascular disease.

The analysis focused on the efficacy of statin treatment on reducing non-HDL-C, as opposed to reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has traditionally been used as a surrogate to determine cardiovascular disease risk from hypercholesterolemia.

“The National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States recommends that LDL-C values should be used to estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease related to lipoproteins,” lead author Alexander Hodkinson, MD, senior National Institute for Health Research fellow, University of Manchester, England, told this news organization.

“But we believe that non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol is more strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease, because non-HDL-C combines all the bad types of cholesterol, which LDL-C misses, so it could be a better tool than LDL-C for assessing CVD risk and effects of treatment. We already knew which of the statins reduce LDL-C, but we wanted to know which ones reduced non-HDL-C; hence the reason for our study,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

The findings were published online  in BMJ.

In April 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom updated guidelines for adults with diabetes to recommend that non-HDL-C should replace LDL-C as the primary target for reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease with lipid-lowering treatment.

Currently, NICE is alone in its recommendation. Other international guidelines do not have a non-HDL-C target and use LDL-C reduction instead. These include guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the National Lipid Association.

Non–HDL-C is simple to calculate and can easily be done by clinicians by subtracting HDL-C from the total cholesterol level, he added.

This analysis compared the effectiveness of different statins at different intensities in reducing levels of non-HDL-C in 42 randomized controlled trials that included 20,193 adults with diabetes.

Compared with placebo, rosuvastatin, given at moderate- and high-intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin at high-intensity doses, were the best at lowering levels of non-HDL-C over an average treatment period of 12 weeks.

High-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.31 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.39 to –1.21). Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 2.27 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –3.00 to –1.49).

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 2.26 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.99 to –1.51).

High-intensity atorvastatin led to a 2.20 mmol/L reduction in non-HDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.69 to –1.70).

Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C, the researchers noted.

In 4,670 patients who were at great risk for a major cardiovascular event, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (1.98 mmol/L; 95% credible interval, –4.16 to 0.26).

In addition, high-intensity simvastatin and rosuvastatin were the most effective in reducing LDL-C.

High-intensity simvastatin led to a 1.93 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.63 to –1.21), and high-intensity rosuvastatin led to a 1.76 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (95% credible interval, –2.37 to –1.15).

In four studies, significant reductions in nonfatal myocardial infarction were shown for atorvastatin at moderate intensity, compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-.76). No significant differences were seen for discontinuations, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.

“We hope our findings will help guide clinicians on statin selection itself, and what types of doses they should be giving patients. These results support using NICE’s new policy guidelines on cholesterol monitoring, using this non-HDL-C measure, which contains all the bad types of cholesterol for patients with diabetes,” Dr. Hodkinson said.

“This study further emphasizes what we have known about the benefit of statin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Deedwania and others have published data on patients with diabetes that showed that treatment with high-intensity atorvastatin was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events.

“Here they use non-HDL cholesterol as a target. The NICE guidelines are the only guidelines looking at non-HDL cholesterol; however, all guidelines suggest an LDL to be less than 70 in all people with diabetes, and for those with recent acute coronary syndromes, the latest evidence suggests the LDL should actually be less than 50,” said Dr. Deedwania, spokesperson for the AHA and ACC.

As far as which measure to use, he believes both are useful. “It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, in my opinion. The societies have not recommended non-HDL cholesterol and it’s easier to stay with what is readily available for clinicians, and using LDL cholesterol is still okay. The results of this analysis are confirmatory, in that looking at non-HDL cholesterol gives results very similar to what these statins have shown for their effect on LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Non-HDL cholesterol a better marker?

For Robert Rosenson, MD, director of metabolism and lipids at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, non-HDL cholesterol is becoming an important marker of risk for several reasons.

“The focus on LDL cholesterol has been due to the causal relationship of LDL with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but in the last few decades, non-HDL has emerged because more people are overweight, have insulin resistance, and have diabetes,” Dr. Rosenson told this news organization. “In those situations, the LDL cholesterol underrepresents the risk of the LDL particles. With insulin resistance, the particles become more triglycerides and less cholesterol, so on a per-particle basis, you need to get more LDL particles to get to a certain LDL cholesterol concentration.”

Non-HDL cholesterol testing does not require fasting, another advantage of using it to monitor cholesterol, he added.

What is often forgotten is that moderate- to high-intensity statins have very good triglyceride-lowering effects, Dr. Rosenson said.

“This article highlights that, by using higher doses, you get more triglyceride-lowering. Hopefully, this will get practitioners to recognize that non-HDL cholesterol is a better predictor of risk in people with diabetes,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Hodkinson, Dr. Rosenson, and Dr. Deedwania report no relevant financial relationships.

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