CAD & Atherosclerosis

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

A new study has drawn attention to inaccurate measurement of LDL-cholesterol levels in some patients with current assays, which could lead to incorrect therapeutic approaches.

The patient groups most affected are those with high levels of the lipoprotein Lp(a), in whom LDL-cholesterol levels are being overestimated in current laboratory tests, the authors say.

“Current laboratory assays all have the limitation that they cannot measure or report LDL cholesterol accurately. They are actually measuring the combination of LDL and Lp(a),” senior study author Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, explained to this news organization.

“Lp(a) can be lowered a little with niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors, but both have a quite a weak effect, and statins increase Lp(a). However, there are now multiple RNA-based therapeutics specifically targeting Lp(a) in clinical development,” he said.

At present, Lp(a) cholesterol has to be mathematically estimated, most commonly with the Dahlén formula, because of the lack of a validated, quantitative method to measure Lp(a) cholesterol, Dr. Tsimikas says.  

For the current study, the researchers used a novel, quantitative, sensitive method to directly measure Lp(a) cholesterol, then applied this method to data from a recent study with the one of the new Lp(a)-lowering drugs in development – pelacarsen – which was conducted in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.

Results showed that direct Lp(a)-cholesterol assessment, and subtracting this value from the laboratory LDL-cholesterol value, provides a more accurate reflection of the baseline and change in LDL cholesterol, the authors report. In the current study, corrected LDL cholesterol was 13 to 16 mg/dL lower than laboratory-reported LDL cholesterol.

Using the corrected LDL-cholesterol results, the study showed that pelacarsen significantly decreases Lp(a) cholesterol, with neutral to modest effects on LDL.

The study also suggests that the current method of calculating Lp(a) cholesterol, and then deriving a corrected LDL cholesterol – the Dahlén formula – is not accurate. 

“The Dahlén formula relies on the assumption that Lp(a) cholesterol is universally a fixed 30% of Lp(a) mass, but this usually isn’t the case. The Dahlén formula needs to be discontinued. It can be highly inaccurate,” Dr. Tsimikas said.  

Important implications

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Paré, MD, Michael Chong, PhD student, and Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, BSc, all of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., say the current findings have three important clinical implications.

“First, they provide further proof that in individuals with elevated Lp(a), the contribution of Lp(a)-cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol is non-negligible using standard assays, with 13-16 mg/dL lower LDL-cholesterol post-correction.”

Secondly, the editorialists point out that these new findings confirm that the effect of Lp(a) inhibitors is likely to be mostly confined to Lp(a), “as would be expected.”

Finally, “and perhaps more importantly, the authors highlight the need to improve clinical reporting of lipid fractions to properly treat LDL-cholesterol and Lp(a) in high-risk patients,” they note.

“The report paves the way for future studies investigating the clinical utility of these additional measurements to initiate and monitor lipid-lowering therapy,” they conclude.

The clinical trial was funded by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and the direct Lp(a)-cholesterol measurements were funded by Novartis through a research grant to the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tsimikas is an employee of Ionis Pharmaceuticals and of the University of California, San Diego, and he is a cofounder of Covicept Therapeutics. He is also a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD on oxidation-specific antibodies and on biomarkers related to oxidized lipoproteins, as well as a cofounder and has equity interest in Oxitope and Kleanthi Diagnostics.

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

A new study has drawn attention to inaccurate measurement of LDL-cholesterol levels in some patients with current assays, which could lead to incorrect therapeutic approaches.

The patient groups most affected are those with high levels of the lipoprotein Lp(a), in whom LDL-cholesterol levels are being overestimated in current laboratory tests, the authors say.

“Current laboratory assays all have the limitation that they cannot measure or report LDL cholesterol accurately. They are actually measuring the combination of LDL and Lp(a),” senior study author Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, explained to this news organization.

“Lp(a) can be lowered a little with niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors, but both have a quite a weak effect, and statins increase Lp(a). However, there are now multiple RNA-based therapeutics specifically targeting Lp(a) in clinical development,” he said.

At present, Lp(a) cholesterol has to be mathematically estimated, most commonly with the Dahlén formula, because of the lack of a validated, quantitative method to measure Lp(a) cholesterol, Dr. Tsimikas says.  

For the current study, the researchers used a novel, quantitative, sensitive method to directly measure Lp(a) cholesterol, then applied this method to data from a recent study with the one of the new Lp(a)-lowering drugs in development – pelacarsen – which was conducted in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.

Results showed that direct Lp(a)-cholesterol assessment, and subtracting this value from the laboratory LDL-cholesterol value, provides a more accurate reflection of the baseline and change in LDL cholesterol, the authors report. In the current study, corrected LDL cholesterol was 13 to 16 mg/dL lower than laboratory-reported LDL cholesterol.

Using the corrected LDL-cholesterol results, the study showed that pelacarsen significantly decreases Lp(a) cholesterol, with neutral to modest effects on LDL.

The study also suggests that the current method of calculating Lp(a) cholesterol, and then deriving a corrected LDL cholesterol – the Dahlén formula – is not accurate. 

“The Dahlén formula relies on the assumption that Lp(a) cholesterol is universally a fixed 30% of Lp(a) mass, but this usually isn’t the case. The Dahlén formula needs to be discontinued. It can be highly inaccurate,” Dr. Tsimikas said.  

Important implications

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Paré, MD, Michael Chong, PhD student, and Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, BSc, all of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., say the current findings have three important clinical implications.

“First, they provide further proof that in individuals with elevated Lp(a), the contribution of Lp(a)-cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol is non-negligible using standard assays, with 13-16 mg/dL lower LDL-cholesterol post-correction.”

Secondly, the editorialists point out that these new findings confirm that the effect of Lp(a) inhibitors is likely to be mostly confined to Lp(a), “as would be expected.”

Finally, “and perhaps more importantly, the authors highlight the need to improve clinical reporting of lipid fractions to properly treat LDL-cholesterol and Lp(a) in high-risk patients,” they note.

“The report paves the way for future studies investigating the clinical utility of these additional measurements to initiate and monitor lipid-lowering therapy,” they conclude.

The clinical trial was funded by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and the direct Lp(a)-cholesterol measurements were funded by Novartis through a research grant to the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tsimikas is an employee of Ionis Pharmaceuticals and of the University of California, San Diego, and he is a cofounder of Covicept Therapeutics. He is also a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD on oxidation-specific antibodies and on biomarkers related to oxidized lipoproteins, as well as a cofounder and has equity interest in Oxitope and Kleanthi Diagnostics.

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

A new study has drawn attention to inaccurate measurement of LDL-cholesterol levels in some patients with current assays, which could lead to incorrect therapeutic approaches.

The patient groups most affected are those with high levels of the lipoprotein Lp(a), in whom LDL-cholesterol levels are being overestimated in current laboratory tests, the authors say.

“Current laboratory assays all have the limitation that they cannot measure or report LDL cholesterol accurately. They are actually measuring the combination of LDL and Lp(a),” senior study author Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, explained to this news organization.

“Lp(a) can be lowered a little with niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors, but both have a quite a weak effect, and statins increase Lp(a). However, there are now multiple RNA-based therapeutics specifically targeting Lp(a) in clinical development,” he said.

At present, Lp(a) cholesterol has to be mathematically estimated, most commonly with the Dahlén formula, because of the lack of a validated, quantitative method to measure Lp(a) cholesterol, Dr. Tsimikas says.  

For the current study, the researchers used a novel, quantitative, sensitive method to directly measure Lp(a) cholesterol, then applied this method to data from a recent study with the one of the new Lp(a)-lowering drugs in development – pelacarsen – which was conducted in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.

Results showed that direct Lp(a)-cholesterol assessment, and subtracting this value from the laboratory LDL-cholesterol value, provides a more accurate reflection of the baseline and change in LDL cholesterol, the authors report. In the current study, corrected LDL cholesterol was 13 to 16 mg/dL lower than laboratory-reported LDL cholesterol.

Using the corrected LDL-cholesterol results, the study showed that pelacarsen significantly decreases Lp(a) cholesterol, with neutral to modest effects on LDL.

The study also suggests that the current method of calculating Lp(a) cholesterol, and then deriving a corrected LDL cholesterol – the Dahlén formula – is not accurate. 

“The Dahlén formula relies on the assumption that Lp(a) cholesterol is universally a fixed 30% of Lp(a) mass, but this usually isn’t the case. The Dahlén formula needs to be discontinued. It can be highly inaccurate,” Dr. Tsimikas said.  

Important implications

In an accompanying editorial, Guillaume Paré, MD, Michael Chong, PhD student, and Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, BSc, all of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., say the current findings have three important clinical implications.

“First, they provide further proof that in individuals with elevated Lp(a), the contribution of Lp(a)-cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol is non-negligible using standard assays, with 13-16 mg/dL lower LDL-cholesterol post-correction.”

Secondly, the editorialists point out that these new findings confirm that the effect of Lp(a) inhibitors is likely to be mostly confined to Lp(a), “as would be expected.”

Finally, “and perhaps more importantly, the authors highlight the need to improve clinical reporting of lipid fractions to properly treat LDL-cholesterol and Lp(a) in high-risk patients,” they note.

“The report paves the way for future studies investigating the clinical utility of these additional measurements to initiate and monitor lipid-lowering therapy,” they conclude.

The clinical trial was funded by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and the direct Lp(a)-cholesterol measurements were funded by Novartis through a research grant to the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tsimikas is an employee of Ionis Pharmaceuticals and of the University of California, San Diego, and he is a cofounder of Covicept Therapeutics. He is also a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD on oxidation-specific antibodies and on biomarkers related to oxidized lipoproteins, as well as a cofounder and has equity interest in Oxitope and Kleanthi Diagnostics.

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

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

More than 18 months after the Watchman FLX device was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA), a prospective analysis of registry data presented at CRT 2022, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, supports its safely outside of the clinical trial setting.

The data, drawn from the LAA occlusion registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, showed a mortality rate at 45 days of under 1.0%, which was consistent with the acceptably low rate of other adverse events, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Only 0.5% had a pericardial effusion within 45 days of LAA closure that required intervention. Of those without effusion, 95% had a leak of less than 3 mm and 82% had no leak at all, according to Dr. Kapadia.

Patients enrolled in this analysis, called SURPASS (Surveillance Post Approval Analysis Plan), had undergone left atrial closure with the device from August 2020 to September 2022. There were no exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 2 years of follow-up is planned.

With more than 16,000 patients enrolled, the data on 14,363 patients in this initial 45-day analysis represents “the largest number of Watchman FLX patients evaluated to date,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
 

Device implantation success 97.5%

The Watchman FLX, which is delivered to the left atrial appendage by a transcatheter approach, was deployed successfully in 97.5% of all 16,048 patients enrolled in the registry. In the 398 cases without successful deployment, the anatomy was not conducive in nearly 70%. Other reasons included failure to meet device-release criteria and change in patient condition.

The outcomes of interest at 45 days were ischemic strokes, systemic emboli, device-related thrombi, device embolization, and bleeding. The primary endpoints at 2 years will be strokes and thrombotic events.

For stroke, the incidence within 45 days was 0.39%. About 25% of the strokes were hemorrhagic and the remainder were ischemic. There was 1 systemic embolism (0.01%), 5 device embolizations (0.03%), and 30 device-related thrombotic events (0.24%). Major bleeding occurred in 508 patients (3.55%).

For context, Dr. Kapadia compared these results to those observed in the PINNACLE FLX trial, which was a nonrandomized but prospective study of the Watchman FLX published about 1 year ago. In PINNACLE FLX, the enrollment was open to patients indicated for oral anticoagulation but who had an appropriate rationale for seeking a nonpharmacological alternative.

Taken from different studies, the outcomes at 45 days should not be construed as a direct comparison, but the similarity of the results can be considered reassuring, according to Dr. Kapadia.

For the composite safety endpoint of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or implantation-related events requiring intervention, the rates in SURPASS (0.4%) and PINNACLE FLX (0.5%) were nearly identical. Device leak rates (82.0% vs. 82.8%), stroke rates (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and all-cause death rates (0.9% vs. 0.5%) were also similar.

The similarity of the SURPASS and PINNACLE FLX data provides another level of reassurance.

“The SURPASS registry confirms the safety of the Watchman Flex in the real-world experience when the device is being used by many different operators in a large patient population,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview.

In “appropriately selected patients,” the SURPASS data confirm that the Watchman FLX device “provides a safe and effective treatment option,” he added.

Relative to the PINNACLE FLX study, which enrolled 400 patients, it is noteworthy that the median age in SURPASS was older (76 vs. 73.8 years), a potential disadvantage in demonstrating comparable safety. The proportion of non-White patients was similar (6.7% vs. 6.3%). SURPASS had a higher proportion of women (40% vs. 35.5%).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The SURPASS data are credible, according to Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

“While there are certainly limitations to registry data, I do feel pretty confident that these procedural complication and success rates [in SURPASS] do indeed reflect reality,” said Dr. Reddy, who was a coauthor of the PINNACLE FLX trial. In general, the SURPASS data “mirror most of our clinical experiences in routine clinical practice.”

With these registry data backing up multiple clinical studies, Dr. Reddy concluded, “I do believe that it is fair to say that Watchman-FLX implantation is a quite safe procedure.”

Dr. Kapadia reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Reddy reported a financial relationship with Boston Scientific.

More than 18 months after the Watchman FLX device was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA), a prospective analysis of registry data presented at CRT 2022, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, supports its safely outside of the clinical trial setting.

The data, drawn from the LAA occlusion registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, showed a mortality rate at 45 days of under 1.0%, which was consistent with the acceptably low rate of other adverse events, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Only 0.5% had a pericardial effusion within 45 days of LAA closure that required intervention. Of those without effusion, 95% had a leak of less than 3 mm and 82% had no leak at all, according to Dr. Kapadia.

Patients enrolled in this analysis, called SURPASS (Surveillance Post Approval Analysis Plan), had undergone left atrial closure with the device from August 2020 to September 2022. There were no exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 2 years of follow-up is planned.

With more than 16,000 patients enrolled, the data on 14,363 patients in this initial 45-day analysis represents “the largest number of Watchman FLX patients evaluated to date,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
 

Device implantation success 97.5%

The Watchman FLX, which is delivered to the left atrial appendage by a transcatheter approach, was deployed successfully in 97.5% of all 16,048 patients enrolled in the registry. In the 398 cases without successful deployment, the anatomy was not conducive in nearly 70%. Other reasons included failure to meet device-release criteria and change in patient condition.

The outcomes of interest at 45 days were ischemic strokes, systemic emboli, device-related thrombi, device embolization, and bleeding. The primary endpoints at 2 years will be strokes and thrombotic events.

For stroke, the incidence within 45 days was 0.39%. About 25% of the strokes were hemorrhagic and the remainder were ischemic. There was 1 systemic embolism (0.01%), 5 device embolizations (0.03%), and 30 device-related thrombotic events (0.24%). Major bleeding occurred in 508 patients (3.55%).

For context, Dr. Kapadia compared these results to those observed in the PINNACLE FLX trial, which was a nonrandomized but prospective study of the Watchman FLX published about 1 year ago. In PINNACLE FLX, the enrollment was open to patients indicated for oral anticoagulation but who had an appropriate rationale for seeking a nonpharmacological alternative.

Taken from different studies, the outcomes at 45 days should not be construed as a direct comparison, but the similarity of the results can be considered reassuring, according to Dr. Kapadia.

For the composite safety endpoint of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or implantation-related events requiring intervention, the rates in SURPASS (0.4%) and PINNACLE FLX (0.5%) were nearly identical. Device leak rates (82.0% vs. 82.8%), stroke rates (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and all-cause death rates (0.9% vs. 0.5%) were also similar.

The similarity of the SURPASS and PINNACLE FLX data provides another level of reassurance.

“The SURPASS registry confirms the safety of the Watchman Flex in the real-world experience when the device is being used by many different operators in a large patient population,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview.

In “appropriately selected patients,” the SURPASS data confirm that the Watchman FLX device “provides a safe and effective treatment option,” he added.

Relative to the PINNACLE FLX study, which enrolled 400 patients, it is noteworthy that the median age in SURPASS was older (76 vs. 73.8 years), a potential disadvantage in demonstrating comparable safety. The proportion of non-White patients was similar (6.7% vs. 6.3%). SURPASS had a higher proportion of women (40% vs. 35.5%).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The SURPASS data are credible, according to Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

“While there are certainly limitations to registry data, I do feel pretty confident that these procedural complication and success rates [in SURPASS] do indeed reflect reality,” said Dr. Reddy, who was a coauthor of the PINNACLE FLX trial. In general, the SURPASS data “mirror most of our clinical experiences in routine clinical practice.”

With these registry data backing up multiple clinical studies, Dr. Reddy concluded, “I do believe that it is fair to say that Watchman-FLX implantation is a quite safe procedure.”

Dr. Kapadia reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Reddy reported a financial relationship with Boston Scientific.

More than 18 months after the Watchman FLX device was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA), a prospective analysis of registry data presented at CRT 2022, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, supports its safely outside of the clinical trial setting.

The data, drawn from the LAA occlusion registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, showed a mortality rate at 45 days of under 1.0%, which was consistent with the acceptably low rate of other adverse events, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Only 0.5% had a pericardial effusion within 45 days of LAA closure that required intervention. Of those without effusion, 95% had a leak of less than 3 mm and 82% had no leak at all, according to Dr. Kapadia.

Patients enrolled in this analysis, called SURPASS (Surveillance Post Approval Analysis Plan), had undergone left atrial closure with the device from August 2020 to September 2022. There were no exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 2 years of follow-up is planned.

With more than 16,000 patients enrolled, the data on 14,363 patients in this initial 45-day analysis represents “the largest number of Watchman FLX patients evaluated to date,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
 

Device implantation success 97.5%

The Watchman FLX, which is delivered to the left atrial appendage by a transcatheter approach, was deployed successfully in 97.5% of all 16,048 patients enrolled in the registry. In the 398 cases without successful deployment, the anatomy was not conducive in nearly 70%. Other reasons included failure to meet device-release criteria and change in patient condition.

The outcomes of interest at 45 days were ischemic strokes, systemic emboli, device-related thrombi, device embolization, and bleeding. The primary endpoints at 2 years will be strokes and thrombotic events.

For stroke, the incidence within 45 days was 0.39%. About 25% of the strokes were hemorrhagic and the remainder were ischemic. There was 1 systemic embolism (0.01%), 5 device embolizations (0.03%), and 30 device-related thrombotic events (0.24%). Major bleeding occurred in 508 patients (3.55%).

For context, Dr. Kapadia compared these results to those observed in the PINNACLE FLX trial, which was a nonrandomized but prospective study of the Watchman FLX published about 1 year ago. In PINNACLE FLX, the enrollment was open to patients indicated for oral anticoagulation but who had an appropriate rationale for seeking a nonpharmacological alternative.

Taken from different studies, the outcomes at 45 days should not be construed as a direct comparison, but the similarity of the results can be considered reassuring, according to Dr. Kapadia.

For the composite safety endpoint of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or implantation-related events requiring intervention, the rates in SURPASS (0.4%) and PINNACLE FLX (0.5%) were nearly identical. Device leak rates (82.0% vs. 82.8%), stroke rates (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and all-cause death rates (0.9% vs. 0.5%) were also similar.

The similarity of the SURPASS and PINNACLE FLX data provides another level of reassurance.

“The SURPASS registry confirms the safety of the Watchman Flex in the real-world experience when the device is being used by many different operators in a large patient population,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview.

In “appropriately selected patients,” the SURPASS data confirm that the Watchman FLX device “provides a safe and effective treatment option,” he added.

Relative to the PINNACLE FLX study, which enrolled 400 patients, it is noteworthy that the median age in SURPASS was older (76 vs. 73.8 years), a potential disadvantage in demonstrating comparable safety. The proportion of non-White patients was similar (6.7% vs. 6.3%). SURPASS had a higher proportion of women (40% vs. 35.5%).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The SURPASS data are credible, according to Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

“While there are certainly limitations to registry data, I do feel pretty confident that these procedural complication and success rates [in SURPASS] do indeed reflect reality,” said Dr. Reddy, who was a coauthor of the PINNACLE FLX trial. In general, the SURPASS data “mirror most of our clinical experiences in routine clinical practice.”

With these registry data backing up multiple clinical studies, Dr. Reddy concluded, “I do believe that it is fair to say that Watchman-FLX implantation is a quite safe procedure.”

Dr. Kapadia reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Reddy reported a financial relationship with Boston Scientific.

International experts have created recommendations on ways to improve adherence to statin therapy by offering doctors guidance on how to distinguish between true side effects of statins and those arising due to patients’ expectations of side effects.

A position paper from the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), a group of over 70 experts worldwide, provides a step-by-step approach to diagnosing and managing symptoms, such as muscle aches, and encourages patients to continue the statin therapy they have been prescribed.

The authors described in their paper, published in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle, how statins are among the most commonly prescribed drugs globally, with “strong and unambiguous evidence” that statin treatment makes a significant difference in preventing cardiovascular disease and dying from it.

They said how, although a recent meta-analysis showed the prevalence of statin intolerance is less than 10%, “as many as 1 in 2 patients stop taking statins, reduce the dose, or take them irregularly because they believe they are responsible for side effects.”

In addition to misattribution of aches and pains, a substantial proportion of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) result from the action of taking medicines and the expectation that medicines cause side effects. A systematic review of trials estimated that between 38% and 78% of SAMS-related statin intolerance could be attributed to expectation alone.
 

Nocebo/drucebo effect

President of the ILEP, Professor Maciej Banach, of the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, both in Poland, who originated these recommendations, said: “There is an enormous worldwide problem with diagnosing statin intolerance correctly. In addition, we know that most diagnosed statin side effects should not, in fact, be attributed to statin therapy.”

He highlighted how as much as 70% of statin side effect symptoms may be due to a psychological phenomenon called the “nocebo” or “drucebo” effect.

“The ‘nocebo/drucebo’ effect is when patients’ expectations that they will experience side effects from the statins result in them actually experiencing these symptoms,” Professor Banach explained. Knowledge gained from the internet, leaflets, friends and family, and other sources, for example, about the most common side effects – muscle pain and liver complaints – can “result in them discontinuing their therapy and, therefore, increasing their risk of heart problems, stroke, and death,” he cautioned.

First author of the paper, Dr. Peter Penson, a reader in Cardiovascular Pharmacology at Liverpool John Moores University, England, said “the benefits of statins are not seen immediately by patients, whilst the associated adverse effects are more tangible, and so many patients stop taking statins, thereby putting themselves at risk of serious illness or death.”
 

A practical evidence-based guide

The authors expressed hope that their recommendations would help doctors improve patient-centered care for those patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and help these patients understand the reason for their treatment, the benefits, including that statins may prolong their lives, and the potential harms, thus enabling the patient to “make a fully informed decision about commencing and continuing therapy.”

The recommendations include:

• That health care professionals should consider the nocebo/drucebo effect when they first prescribe statins and provide information to patients about the rationale and benefits of the therapy
• The Personalized Lipid Intervention Plan (PLIP) should be used to help this process. It estimates the patient’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease with and without statin therapy, as well as providing clear information on adverse side effects, including that muscle symptoms are common but rarely caused by statins
• How to effectively diagnose statin intolerance and exclude nocebo/drucebo effect
• Routine follow-up to check the safety and efficacy of the therapy is recommended, and strategies for managing patients with complete statin intolerance are provided, within the recommendations. Also offered is advice about improving adherence to statin therapy and suggestions for the identification and management of the “relatively small number of patients who have true statin intolerance.”

Dr. Penson emphasized how this was the first paper to deal explicitly with the nocebo/drucebo effect and offers “practical and evidence-based suggestions” to help support individuals who are at risk of cardiovascular disease but who experience adverse effects attributable to their medicines. He added how the PLIP summarizes important lifestyle advice to help patients reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes and also discusses the evidence for non-statin drugs that can be used to lower cholesterol.

Dr. Penson pointed out how “the vast majority of patients can take statins safely and that the benefits greatly outweigh the potential risk of side effects” and, therefore, an individual’s risk of heart problems, stroke, and death, can be reduced.

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

International experts have created recommendations on ways to improve adherence to statin therapy by offering doctors guidance on how to distinguish between true side effects of statins and those arising due to patients’ expectations of side effects.

A position paper from the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), a group of over 70 experts worldwide, provides a step-by-step approach to diagnosing and managing symptoms, such as muscle aches, and encourages patients to continue the statin therapy they have been prescribed.

The authors described in their paper, published in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle, how statins are among the most commonly prescribed drugs globally, with “strong and unambiguous evidence” that statin treatment makes a significant difference in preventing cardiovascular disease and dying from it.

They said how, although a recent meta-analysis showed the prevalence of statin intolerance is less than 10%, “as many as 1 in 2 patients stop taking statins, reduce the dose, or take them irregularly because they believe they are responsible for side effects.”

In addition to misattribution of aches and pains, a substantial proportion of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) result from the action of taking medicines and the expectation that medicines cause side effects. A systematic review of trials estimated that between 38% and 78% of SAMS-related statin intolerance could be attributed to expectation alone.
 

Nocebo/drucebo effect

President of the ILEP, Professor Maciej Banach, of the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, both in Poland, who originated these recommendations, said: “There is an enormous worldwide problem with diagnosing statin intolerance correctly. In addition, we know that most diagnosed statin side effects should not, in fact, be attributed to statin therapy.”

He highlighted how as much as 70% of statin side effect symptoms may be due to a psychological phenomenon called the “nocebo” or “drucebo” effect.

“The ‘nocebo/drucebo’ effect is when patients’ expectations that they will experience side effects from the statins result in them actually experiencing these symptoms,” Professor Banach explained. Knowledge gained from the internet, leaflets, friends and family, and other sources, for example, about the most common side effects – muscle pain and liver complaints – can “result in them discontinuing their therapy and, therefore, increasing their risk of heart problems, stroke, and death,” he cautioned.

First author of the paper, Dr. Peter Penson, a reader in Cardiovascular Pharmacology at Liverpool John Moores University, England, said “the benefits of statins are not seen immediately by patients, whilst the associated adverse effects are more tangible, and so many patients stop taking statins, thereby putting themselves at risk of serious illness or death.”
 

A practical evidence-based guide

The authors expressed hope that their recommendations would help doctors improve patient-centered care for those patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and help these patients understand the reason for their treatment, the benefits, including that statins may prolong their lives, and the potential harms, thus enabling the patient to “make a fully informed decision about commencing and continuing therapy.”

The recommendations include:

• That health care professionals should consider the nocebo/drucebo effect when they first prescribe statins and provide information to patients about the rationale and benefits of the therapy
• The Personalized Lipid Intervention Plan (PLIP) should be used to help this process. It estimates the patient’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease with and without statin therapy, as well as providing clear information on adverse side effects, including that muscle symptoms are common but rarely caused by statins
• How to effectively diagnose statin intolerance and exclude nocebo/drucebo effect
• Routine follow-up to check the safety and efficacy of the therapy is recommended, and strategies for managing patients with complete statin intolerance are provided, within the recommendations. Also offered is advice about improving adherence to statin therapy and suggestions for the identification and management of the “relatively small number of patients who have true statin intolerance.”

Dr. Penson emphasized how this was the first paper to deal explicitly with the nocebo/drucebo effect and offers “practical and evidence-based suggestions” to help support individuals who are at risk of cardiovascular disease but who experience adverse effects attributable to their medicines. He added how the PLIP summarizes important lifestyle advice to help patients reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes and also discusses the evidence for non-statin drugs that can be used to lower cholesterol.

Dr. Penson pointed out how “the vast majority of patients can take statins safely and that the benefits greatly outweigh the potential risk of side effects” and, therefore, an individual’s risk of heart problems, stroke, and death, can be reduced.

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

International experts have created recommendations on ways to improve adherence to statin therapy by offering doctors guidance on how to distinguish between true side effects of statins and those arising due to patients’ expectations of side effects.

A position paper from the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), a group of over 70 experts worldwide, provides a step-by-step approach to diagnosing and managing symptoms, such as muscle aches, and encourages patients to continue the statin therapy they have been prescribed.

The authors described in their paper, published in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle, how statins are among the most commonly prescribed drugs globally, with “strong and unambiguous evidence” that statin treatment makes a significant difference in preventing cardiovascular disease and dying from it.

They said how, although a recent meta-analysis showed the prevalence of statin intolerance is less than 10%, “as many as 1 in 2 patients stop taking statins, reduce the dose, or take them irregularly because they believe they are responsible for side effects.”

In addition to misattribution of aches and pains, a substantial proportion of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) result from the action of taking medicines and the expectation that medicines cause side effects. A systematic review of trials estimated that between 38% and 78% of SAMS-related statin intolerance could be attributed to expectation alone.
 

Nocebo/drucebo effect

President of the ILEP, Professor Maciej Banach, of the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, both in Poland, who originated these recommendations, said: “There is an enormous worldwide problem with diagnosing statin intolerance correctly. In addition, we know that most diagnosed statin side effects should not, in fact, be attributed to statin therapy.”

He highlighted how as much as 70% of statin side effect symptoms may be due to a psychological phenomenon called the “nocebo” or “drucebo” effect.

“The ‘nocebo/drucebo’ effect is when patients’ expectations that they will experience side effects from the statins result in them actually experiencing these symptoms,” Professor Banach explained. Knowledge gained from the internet, leaflets, friends and family, and other sources, for example, about the most common side effects – muscle pain and liver complaints – can “result in them discontinuing their therapy and, therefore, increasing their risk of heart problems, stroke, and death,” he cautioned.

First author of the paper, Dr. Peter Penson, a reader in Cardiovascular Pharmacology at Liverpool John Moores University, England, said “the benefits of statins are not seen immediately by patients, whilst the associated adverse effects are more tangible, and so many patients stop taking statins, thereby putting themselves at risk of serious illness or death.”
 

A practical evidence-based guide

The authors expressed hope that their recommendations would help doctors improve patient-centered care for those patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and help these patients understand the reason for their treatment, the benefits, including that statins may prolong their lives, and the potential harms, thus enabling the patient to “make a fully informed decision about commencing and continuing therapy.”

The recommendations include:

• That health care professionals should consider the nocebo/drucebo effect when they first prescribe statins and provide information to patients about the rationale and benefits of the therapy
• The Personalized Lipid Intervention Plan (PLIP) should be used to help this process. It estimates the patient’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease with and without statin therapy, as well as providing clear information on adverse side effects, including that muscle symptoms are common but rarely caused by statins
• How to effectively diagnose statin intolerance and exclude nocebo/drucebo effect
• Routine follow-up to check the safety and efficacy of the therapy is recommended, and strategies for managing patients with complete statin intolerance are provided, within the recommendations. Also offered is advice about improving adherence to statin therapy and suggestions for the identification and management of the “relatively small number of patients who have true statin intolerance.”

Dr. Penson emphasized how this was the first paper to deal explicitly with the nocebo/drucebo effect and offers “practical and evidence-based suggestions” to help support individuals who are at risk of cardiovascular disease but who experience adverse effects attributable to their medicines. He added how the PLIP summarizes important lifestyle advice to help patients reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes and also discusses the evidence for non-statin drugs that can be used to lower cholesterol.

Dr. Penson pointed out how “the vast majority of patients can take statins safely and that the benefits greatly outweigh the potential risk of side effects” and, therefore, an individual’s risk of heart problems, stroke, and death, can be reduced.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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