User login
Lead pollutants as harmful to health as particulate matter
in a presentation to the World Bank. Their work was published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
As Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana report, the economic consequences of increased exposure to lead are already immense, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study was financed by the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program.
Intellectual, cardiovascular effects
“It is a very important publication that affects all of us,” pediatrician Stephan Böse-O’Reilly, MD, of the Institute and Polyclinic for Occupational, Social, and Environmental Health at Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital in Munich, Germany, said in an interview. “The study, the results of which I think are very reliable, shows that elevated levels of lead in the blood have a much more drastic effect on children’s intelligence than we previously thought.”
It is well known that lead affects the antenatal and postnatal cognitive development of children, Dr. Böse-O’Reilly explained. But the extent of this effect has quite clearly been underestimated before now.
On the other hand, Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana’s work could prove that lead may lead to more cardiovascular diseases in adulthood. “We already knew that increased exposure to lead increased the risk of high blood pressure and, as a result, mortality,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. “This study now very clearly shows that the risk of arteriosclerosis, for example, also increases through lead exposure.”
Figures from 2019
“For the first time, to our knowledge, we aimed to estimate the global burden and cost of IQ loss and cardiovascular disease mortality from lead exposure,” wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana. For their calculations, the scientists used blood lead level estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019.
They estimated IQ loss in children younger than 5 years using the internationally recognized blood lead level–IQ loss function. The researchers subsequently estimated the cost of this IQ loss based on the loss in lifetime income, presented as cost in U.S. dollars and percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).
Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana estimated cardiovascular deaths caused by lead exposure in adults aged 25 years or older using a model that captures the effects of lead exposure on cardiovascular disease mortality that is mediated through mechanisms other than hypertension.
Finally, they used the statistical life expectancy to estimate the welfare cost of premature mortality, also presented as cost in U.S. dollars and percentage of GDP. All estimates were calculated according to the World Bank income classification for 2019.
Millions of deaths
As reported by Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana, children younger than 5 years lost an estimated 765 million IQ points worldwide because of lead exposure in this period. In 2019, 5,545,000 adults died from cardiovascular diseases caused by lead exposure. The scientists recorded 729 million of the IQ points lost (95.3%) and 5,004,000 (90.2%) of the deaths as occurring in LMICs.
The IQ loss here was nearly 80% higher than a previous estimate, wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana. The number of cardiovascular disease deaths they determined was six times higher than the GBD 2019 estimate.
“These are results with which the expert societies, especially the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine and the German Cardiac Society, and the corresponding professional associations need to concern themselves,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly.
Although blood lead concentrations have declined substantially since the phase-out of leaded gasoline, especially in Western countries, lead still represents a major health issue because it stays in the bones for decades.
European situation moderate
“We need a broad discussion on questions such as whether lead levels should be included in prophylactic assessments in certain age groups, what blood level is even tolerable, and in what situation medicinal therapy with chelating agents would possibly be appropriate,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly.
“Of course, we cannot answer these questions on the basis of one individual study,” he added. “However, the work in question definitely illustrates how dangerous lead can be and that we need further research into the actual burden and the best preventive measures.”
In this respect, the situation in Europe is still comparatively moderate. “Globally, lead exposure has risen in recent years,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. According to an investigation by the Planet Earth Foundation, outside of the European Union, lead can increasingly be found in toys, spices, and cooking utensils, for example.
“Especially in lower-income countries, there is a lack of consumer protection or a good monitoring program like we have here in the EU,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. In these countries, lead is sometimes added to spices by unscrupulous retailers to make the color more intense or to simply add to its weight to gain more profit.
Recycling lead-acid batteries or other electrical waste, often transferred to poorer countries, constitutes a large problem. “In general, children in Germany have a blood lead level of less than 1 mcg/dL,” explained Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. “In some regions of Indonesia, where these recycling factories are located, more than 50% of children have levels of more than 20 mcg/dL.”
Particulate matter
According to Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana, the global cost of increased lead exposure was around $6 trillion USD in 2019, which was equivalent to 6.9% of global GDP. About 77% of the cost ($4.62 trillion USD) comprised the welfare costs of cardiovascular disease mortality, and 23% ($1.38 trillion USD) comprised the present value of future income losses because of IQ loss in children.
“Our findings suggest that global lead exposure has health and economic costs on par with PM2.5 air pollution,” wrote the authors. This places lead as an environmental risk factor on par with particulate matter and above that of air pollution from solid fuels, ahead of unsafe drinking water, unhygienic sanitation, or insufficient handwashing.
“This finding is in contrast to that of GBD 2019, which ranked lead exposure as a distant fourth environmental risk factor, due to not accounting for IQ loss in children – other than idiopathic developmental intellectual disability in a small subset of children – and reporting a substantially lower estimate of adult cardiovascular disease mortality,” wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana.
“A central implication for future research and policy is that LMICs bear an extraordinarily large share of the health and cost burden of lead exposure,” wrote the authors. Consequently, improved quality of blood lead level measurements and identification of sources containing lead are urgently needed there.
Improved recycling methods
Dr. Böse-O’Reilly would like an increased focus on children. “If children’s cognitive skills are lost, this of course has a long-term effect on a country’s economic position,” he said. “Precisely that which LMICs actually need for their development is being stripped from them.
“We should think long and hard about whether we really need to send so much of our electrical waste and so many old cars to poorer countries, where they are incorrectly recycled,” he warned. “We should at least give the LMICs the support necessary for them to be able to process lead-containing products in the future so that less lead makes it into the environment.
“Through these global cycles, we all contribute a lot toward the worldwide lead burden,” Dr. Böse-O’Reilly said. “In my opinion, the German Supply Chain Act is therefore definitely sensible. Not only does it protect our own economy, but it also protects the health of people in other countries.”
This article was translated from Medscape’s German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in a presentation to the World Bank. Their work was published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
As Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana report, the economic consequences of increased exposure to lead are already immense, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study was financed by the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program.
Intellectual, cardiovascular effects
“It is a very important publication that affects all of us,” pediatrician Stephan Böse-O’Reilly, MD, of the Institute and Polyclinic for Occupational, Social, and Environmental Health at Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital in Munich, Germany, said in an interview. “The study, the results of which I think are very reliable, shows that elevated levels of lead in the blood have a much more drastic effect on children’s intelligence than we previously thought.”
It is well known that lead affects the antenatal and postnatal cognitive development of children, Dr. Böse-O’Reilly explained. But the extent of this effect has quite clearly been underestimated before now.
On the other hand, Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana’s work could prove that lead may lead to more cardiovascular diseases in adulthood. “We already knew that increased exposure to lead increased the risk of high blood pressure and, as a result, mortality,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. “This study now very clearly shows that the risk of arteriosclerosis, for example, also increases through lead exposure.”
Figures from 2019
“For the first time, to our knowledge, we aimed to estimate the global burden and cost of IQ loss and cardiovascular disease mortality from lead exposure,” wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana. For their calculations, the scientists used blood lead level estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019.
They estimated IQ loss in children younger than 5 years using the internationally recognized blood lead level–IQ loss function. The researchers subsequently estimated the cost of this IQ loss based on the loss in lifetime income, presented as cost in U.S. dollars and percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).
Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana estimated cardiovascular deaths caused by lead exposure in adults aged 25 years or older using a model that captures the effects of lead exposure on cardiovascular disease mortality that is mediated through mechanisms other than hypertension.
Finally, they used the statistical life expectancy to estimate the welfare cost of premature mortality, also presented as cost in U.S. dollars and percentage of GDP. All estimates were calculated according to the World Bank income classification for 2019.
Millions of deaths
As reported by Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana, children younger than 5 years lost an estimated 765 million IQ points worldwide because of lead exposure in this period. In 2019, 5,545,000 adults died from cardiovascular diseases caused by lead exposure. The scientists recorded 729 million of the IQ points lost (95.3%) and 5,004,000 (90.2%) of the deaths as occurring in LMICs.
The IQ loss here was nearly 80% higher than a previous estimate, wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana. The number of cardiovascular disease deaths they determined was six times higher than the GBD 2019 estimate.
“These are results with which the expert societies, especially the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine and the German Cardiac Society, and the corresponding professional associations need to concern themselves,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly.
Although blood lead concentrations have declined substantially since the phase-out of leaded gasoline, especially in Western countries, lead still represents a major health issue because it stays in the bones for decades.
European situation moderate
“We need a broad discussion on questions such as whether lead levels should be included in prophylactic assessments in certain age groups, what blood level is even tolerable, and in what situation medicinal therapy with chelating agents would possibly be appropriate,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly.
“Of course, we cannot answer these questions on the basis of one individual study,” he added. “However, the work in question definitely illustrates how dangerous lead can be and that we need further research into the actual burden and the best preventive measures.”
In this respect, the situation in Europe is still comparatively moderate. “Globally, lead exposure has risen in recent years,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. According to an investigation by the Planet Earth Foundation, outside of the European Union, lead can increasingly be found in toys, spices, and cooking utensils, for example.
“Especially in lower-income countries, there is a lack of consumer protection or a good monitoring program like we have here in the EU,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. In these countries, lead is sometimes added to spices by unscrupulous retailers to make the color more intense or to simply add to its weight to gain more profit.
Recycling lead-acid batteries or other electrical waste, often transferred to poorer countries, constitutes a large problem. “In general, children in Germany have a blood lead level of less than 1 mcg/dL,” explained Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. “In some regions of Indonesia, where these recycling factories are located, more than 50% of children have levels of more than 20 mcg/dL.”
Particulate matter
According to Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana, the global cost of increased lead exposure was around $6 trillion USD in 2019, which was equivalent to 6.9% of global GDP. About 77% of the cost ($4.62 trillion USD) comprised the welfare costs of cardiovascular disease mortality, and 23% ($1.38 trillion USD) comprised the present value of future income losses because of IQ loss in children.
“Our findings suggest that global lead exposure has health and economic costs on par with PM2.5 air pollution,” wrote the authors. This places lead as an environmental risk factor on par with particulate matter and above that of air pollution from solid fuels, ahead of unsafe drinking water, unhygienic sanitation, or insufficient handwashing.
“This finding is in contrast to that of GBD 2019, which ranked lead exposure as a distant fourth environmental risk factor, due to not accounting for IQ loss in children – other than idiopathic developmental intellectual disability in a small subset of children – and reporting a substantially lower estimate of adult cardiovascular disease mortality,” wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana.
“A central implication for future research and policy is that LMICs bear an extraordinarily large share of the health and cost burden of lead exposure,” wrote the authors. Consequently, improved quality of blood lead level measurements and identification of sources containing lead are urgently needed there.
Improved recycling methods
Dr. Böse-O’Reilly would like an increased focus on children. “If children’s cognitive skills are lost, this of course has a long-term effect on a country’s economic position,” he said. “Precisely that which LMICs actually need for their development is being stripped from them.
“We should think long and hard about whether we really need to send so much of our electrical waste and so many old cars to poorer countries, where they are incorrectly recycled,” he warned. “We should at least give the LMICs the support necessary for them to be able to process lead-containing products in the future so that less lead makes it into the environment.
“Through these global cycles, we all contribute a lot toward the worldwide lead burden,” Dr. Böse-O’Reilly said. “In my opinion, the German Supply Chain Act is therefore definitely sensible. Not only does it protect our own economy, but it also protects the health of people in other countries.”
This article was translated from Medscape’s German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in a presentation to the World Bank. Their work was published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
As Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana report, the economic consequences of increased exposure to lead are already immense, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study was financed by the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program.
Intellectual, cardiovascular effects
“It is a very important publication that affects all of us,” pediatrician Stephan Böse-O’Reilly, MD, of the Institute and Polyclinic for Occupational, Social, and Environmental Health at Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital in Munich, Germany, said in an interview. “The study, the results of which I think are very reliable, shows that elevated levels of lead in the blood have a much more drastic effect on children’s intelligence than we previously thought.”
It is well known that lead affects the antenatal and postnatal cognitive development of children, Dr. Böse-O’Reilly explained. But the extent of this effect has quite clearly been underestimated before now.
On the other hand, Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana’s work could prove that lead may lead to more cardiovascular diseases in adulthood. “We already knew that increased exposure to lead increased the risk of high blood pressure and, as a result, mortality,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. “This study now very clearly shows that the risk of arteriosclerosis, for example, also increases through lead exposure.”
Figures from 2019
“For the first time, to our knowledge, we aimed to estimate the global burden and cost of IQ loss and cardiovascular disease mortality from lead exposure,” wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana. For their calculations, the scientists used blood lead level estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019.
They estimated IQ loss in children younger than 5 years using the internationally recognized blood lead level–IQ loss function. The researchers subsequently estimated the cost of this IQ loss based on the loss in lifetime income, presented as cost in U.S. dollars and percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).
Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana estimated cardiovascular deaths caused by lead exposure in adults aged 25 years or older using a model that captures the effects of lead exposure on cardiovascular disease mortality that is mediated through mechanisms other than hypertension.
Finally, they used the statistical life expectancy to estimate the welfare cost of premature mortality, also presented as cost in U.S. dollars and percentage of GDP. All estimates were calculated according to the World Bank income classification for 2019.
Millions of deaths
As reported by Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana, children younger than 5 years lost an estimated 765 million IQ points worldwide because of lead exposure in this period. In 2019, 5,545,000 adults died from cardiovascular diseases caused by lead exposure. The scientists recorded 729 million of the IQ points lost (95.3%) and 5,004,000 (90.2%) of the deaths as occurring in LMICs.
The IQ loss here was nearly 80% higher than a previous estimate, wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana. The number of cardiovascular disease deaths they determined was six times higher than the GBD 2019 estimate.
“These are results with which the expert societies, especially the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine and the German Cardiac Society, and the corresponding professional associations need to concern themselves,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly.
Although blood lead concentrations have declined substantially since the phase-out of leaded gasoline, especially in Western countries, lead still represents a major health issue because it stays in the bones for decades.
European situation moderate
“We need a broad discussion on questions such as whether lead levels should be included in prophylactic assessments in certain age groups, what blood level is even tolerable, and in what situation medicinal therapy with chelating agents would possibly be appropriate,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly.
“Of course, we cannot answer these questions on the basis of one individual study,” he added. “However, the work in question definitely illustrates how dangerous lead can be and that we need further research into the actual burden and the best preventive measures.”
In this respect, the situation in Europe is still comparatively moderate. “Globally, lead exposure has risen in recent years,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. According to an investigation by the Planet Earth Foundation, outside of the European Union, lead can increasingly be found in toys, spices, and cooking utensils, for example.
“Especially in lower-income countries, there is a lack of consumer protection or a good monitoring program like we have here in the EU,” said Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. In these countries, lead is sometimes added to spices by unscrupulous retailers to make the color more intense or to simply add to its weight to gain more profit.
Recycling lead-acid batteries or other electrical waste, often transferred to poorer countries, constitutes a large problem. “In general, children in Germany have a blood lead level of less than 1 mcg/dL,” explained Dr. Böse-O’Reilly. “In some regions of Indonesia, where these recycling factories are located, more than 50% of children have levels of more than 20 mcg/dL.”
Particulate matter
According to Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana, the global cost of increased lead exposure was around $6 trillion USD in 2019, which was equivalent to 6.9% of global GDP. About 77% of the cost ($4.62 trillion USD) comprised the welfare costs of cardiovascular disease mortality, and 23% ($1.38 trillion USD) comprised the present value of future income losses because of IQ loss in children.
“Our findings suggest that global lead exposure has health and economic costs on par with PM2.5 air pollution,” wrote the authors. This places lead as an environmental risk factor on par with particulate matter and above that of air pollution from solid fuels, ahead of unsafe drinking water, unhygienic sanitation, or insufficient handwashing.
“This finding is in contrast to that of GBD 2019, which ranked lead exposure as a distant fourth environmental risk factor, due to not accounting for IQ loss in children – other than idiopathic developmental intellectual disability in a small subset of children – and reporting a substantially lower estimate of adult cardiovascular disease mortality,” wrote Mr. Larsen and Mr. Sánchez-Triana.
“A central implication for future research and policy is that LMICs bear an extraordinarily large share of the health and cost burden of lead exposure,” wrote the authors. Consequently, improved quality of blood lead level measurements and identification of sources containing lead are urgently needed there.
Improved recycling methods
Dr. Böse-O’Reilly would like an increased focus on children. “If children’s cognitive skills are lost, this of course has a long-term effect on a country’s economic position,” he said. “Precisely that which LMICs actually need for their development is being stripped from them.
“We should think long and hard about whether we really need to send so much of our electrical waste and so many old cars to poorer countries, where they are incorrectly recycled,” he warned. “We should at least give the LMICs the support necessary for them to be able to process lead-containing products in the future so that less lead makes it into the environment.
“Through these global cycles, we all contribute a lot toward the worldwide lead burden,” Dr. Böse-O’Reilly said. “In my opinion, the German Supply Chain Act is therefore definitely sensible. Not only does it protect our own economy, but it also protects the health of people in other countries.”
This article was translated from Medscape’s German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET PLANETARY HEALTH
Depression tied to higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality
In a large prospective study, a graded higher risk of all-cause mortality and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) emerged in adults with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, compared with those with no such symptoms.
Participants with mild depressive symptoms had a 35%-49% higher risk of all-cause and CVD mortality, respectively, while for those with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, the risk of all-cause, CVD, and IHD mortality was 62%, 79%, and 121% higher, respectively.
“This information highlights the importance for clinicians to identify patients with depressive symptoms and help them engage in treatment,” lead author Zefeng Zhang, MD, PhD, of the division for heart disease and stroke prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said in an interview.
The study appears in JAMA Network Open.
A nonclassic risk factor for CVD death
This graded positive association between depressive symptoms and CVD death was observed in data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2018, which were linked with the National Death Index through 2019 for adults aged 20 and older. Data analysis occurred from March 1 to May 26, 2023. According to the authors, their analyses extend findings from previous research by assessing these associations in a large, diverse, and nationally representative sample. Using more nuanced CVD-related causes of death, depressive symptoms emerged as a nontraditional risk factor for CVD mortality.
The study
In a total cohort of 23,694, about half male, mean overall age 44.7 years, prevalences of mild and moderate to severe depression were 14.9% and 7.2%, respectively, with depressive symptoms assessed by the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire asking about symptoms over the past 2 weeks.
Adults with depression had significantly lower CV health scores in six of the American Heart Association Life’s Essential 8 metrics for heart health. For all-cause mortality, hazard ratios were 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.72) for mild depressive symptoms vs. none and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.24-2.12) for moderate to severe depressive symptoms vs. none.
The corresponding hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0) and 1.79 (95% CI,1.22-2.62) for CVD mortality and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.58-1.60) and 2.21 (95% CI, 1.24-3.91) for IHD death, with associations largely consistent across subgroups.
At the highest severity of depressive symptoms (almost daily for past 2 weeks), feeling tired or having little energy, poor appetite or overeating, and having little interest in doing things were significantly associated with all-cause and CVD mortality after adjusting for potential confounders.
Approximately 11%-16% of the positive associations could be explained by lifestyle factors such as excess alcohol consumption, overeating, and inactivity as per the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 metrics.
“Taken together with the body of literature on associations between depression and CVD mortality, these findings can support public health efforts to develop a comprehensive, nationwide strategy to improve well-being, including both mental and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Zhang and associates wrote.
This research was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
In a large prospective study, a graded higher risk of all-cause mortality and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) emerged in adults with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, compared with those with no such symptoms.
Participants with mild depressive symptoms had a 35%-49% higher risk of all-cause and CVD mortality, respectively, while for those with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, the risk of all-cause, CVD, and IHD mortality was 62%, 79%, and 121% higher, respectively.
“This information highlights the importance for clinicians to identify patients with depressive symptoms and help them engage in treatment,” lead author Zefeng Zhang, MD, PhD, of the division for heart disease and stroke prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said in an interview.
The study appears in JAMA Network Open.
A nonclassic risk factor for CVD death
This graded positive association between depressive symptoms and CVD death was observed in data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2018, which were linked with the National Death Index through 2019 for adults aged 20 and older. Data analysis occurred from March 1 to May 26, 2023. According to the authors, their analyses extend findings from previous research by assessing these associations in a large, diverse, and nationally representative sample. Using more nuanced CVD-related causes of death, depressive symptoms emerged as a nontraditional risk factor for CVD mortality.
The study
In a total cohort of 23,694, about half male, mean overall age 44.7 years, prevalences of mild and moderate to severe depression were 14.9% and 7.2%, respectively, with depressive symptoms assessed by the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire asking about symptoms over the past 2 weeks.
Adults with depression had significantly lower CV health scores in six of the American Heart Association Life’s Essential 8 metrics for heart health. For all-cause mortality, hazard ratios were 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.72) for mild depressive symptoms vs. none and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.24-2.12) for moderate to severe depressive symptoms vs. none.
The corresponding hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0) and 1.79 (95% CI,1.22-2.62) for CVD mortality and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.58-1.60) and 2.21 (95% CI, 1.24-3.91) for IHD death, with associations largely consistent across subgroups.
At the highest severity of depressive symptoms (almost daily for past 2 weeks), feeling tired or having little energy, poor appetite or overeating, and having little interest in doing things were significantly associated with all-cause and CVD mortality after adjusting for potential confounders.
Approximately 11%-16% of the positive associations could be explained by lifestyle factors such as excess alcohol consumption, overeating, and inactivity as per the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 metrics.
“Taken together with the body of literature on associations between depression and CVD mortality, these findings can support public health efforts to develop a comprehensive, nationwide strategy to improve well-being, including both mental and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Zhang and associates wrote.
This research was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
In a large prospective study, a graded higher risk of all-cause mortality and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) emerged in adults with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, compared with those with no such symptoms.
Participants with mild depressive symptoms had a 35%-49% higher risk of all-cause and CVD mortality, respectively, while for those with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, the risk of all-cause, CVD, and IHD mortality was 62%, 79%, and 121% higher, respectively.
“This information highlights the importance for clinicians to identify patients with depressive symptoms and help them engage in treatment,” lead author Zefeng Zhang, MD, PhD, of the division for heart disease and stroke prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said in an interview.
The study appears in JAMA Network Open.
A nonclassic risk factor for CVD death
This graded positive association between depressive symptoms and CVD death was observed in data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2018, which were linked with the National Death Index through 2019 for adults aged 20 and older. Data analysis occurred from March 1 to May 26, 2023. According to the authors, their analyses extend findings from previous research by assessing these associations in a large, diverse, and nationally representative sample. Using more nuanced CVD-related causes of death, depressive symptoms emerged as a nontraditional risk factor for CVD mortality.
The study
In a total cohort of 23,694, about half male, mean overall age 44.7 years, prevalences of mild and moderate to severe depression were 14.9% and 7.2%, respectively, with depressive symptoms assessed by the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire asking about symptoms over the past 2 weeks.
Adults with depression had significantly lower CV health scores in six of the American Heart Association Life’s Essential 8 metrics for heart health. For all-cause mortality, hazard ratios were 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.72) for mild depressive symptoms vs. none and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.24-2.12) for moderate to severe depressive symptoms vs. none.
The corresponding hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0) and 1.79 (95% CI,1.22-2.62) for CVD mortality and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.58-1.60) and 2.21 (95% CI, 1.24-3.91) for IHD death, with associations largely consistent across subgroups.
At the highest severity of depressive symptoms (almost daily for past 2 weeks), feeling tired or having little energy, poor appetite or overeating, and having little interest in doing things were significantly associated with all-cause and CVD mortality after adjusting for potential confounders.
Approximately 11%-16% of the positive associations could be explained by lifestyle factors such as excess alcohol consumption, overeating, and inactivity as per the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 metrics.
“Taken together with the body of literature on associations between depression and CVD mortality, these findings can support public health efforts to develop a comprehensive, nationwide strategy to improve well-being, including both mental and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Zhang and associates wrote.
This research was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Job-related stressors tied to increased CHD risk in men
TOPLINE:
, and those facing both stressors have double the risk compared with colleagues not suffering from these stressors, new research shows. Results in women were inconclusive, suggesting a more complex relationship of these factors, the researchers noted.
METHODOLOGY:
- Evidence suggests psychosocial stressors at work, from job strain related to level of demand and control in workload and decision-making responsibilities, and an effort-reward imbalance (ERI) in areas such as salary, promotion, and job stability, increase CHD risk, with the effect of both types of stressors together possibly being especially harmful.
- The study, which included 6,465 participants in the cardiovascular component of PROQ, a Canadian prospective cohort of white-collar workers initially free of cardiovascular disease, mean age 45 years, estimated that the separate and combined effect of job strain and ERI on CHD incidence.
- Researchers used the Job Content Questionnaire to assess psychological demands and job control; various measures; scales to determine job strain, reward, and effort at work; and the sum of both effort and reward to calculate the ERI ratio.
- They assessed CHD using medico-administrative databases and an algorithm validated by medical records.
TAKEAWAY:
- After a median follow-up of 18.7 years, there were 571 and 265 incident CHD cases among men and women, respectively.
- Men with either job strain or ERI had a 49% increased risk for CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.09), an estimate comparable to that of several lifestyle risk factors for CHD.
- Male workers facing both job strain and ERI had a 103% increased risk for CHD (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.38-2.97), which is comparable to the increased risk associated with obesity.
- Associations were robust to adjustments for demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, personality, stressful life events, and biomedical and lifestyle factors.
- Among women, results were inconclusive because the CIs were wide enough to encompass both protective and detrimental effects, suggesting more research is needed into the complex interplay of various stressors and women’s heart health.
IN PRACTICE:
“Integrative and interdisciplinary approaches should be used to tackle psychosocial stressors at work,” the authors wrote, adding this involves “going beyond traditional modifiable individual behaviors” and should include “population-based prevention strategies taking into consideration both the individual and their work environment.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec-Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. It was published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
LIMITATIONS:
There was a risk for chance associations due to multiple testing. The exposure may have changed over the course of the study. Using medical databases for CHD event definition may have led to misclassification and underestimation of outcomes. The study population is limited to white-collar workers.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Lavigne-Robichaud was supported by a PhD grant from les Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. See paper for disclosures of other authors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, and those facing both stressors have double the risk compared with colleagues not suffering from these stressors, new research shows. Results in women were inconclusive, suggesting a more complex relationship of these factors, the researchers noted.
METHODOLOGY:
- Evidence suggests psychosocial stressors at work, from job strain related to level of demand and control in workload and decision-making responsibilities, and an effort-reward imbalance (ERI) in areas such as salary, promotion, and job stability, increase CHD risk, with the effect of both types of stressors together possibly being especially harmful.
- The study, which included 6,465 participants in the cardiovascular component of PROQ, a Canadian prospective cohort of white-collar workers initially free of cardiovascular disease, mean age 45 years, estimated that the separate and combined effect of job strain and ERI on CHD incidence.
- Researchers used the Job Content Questionnaire to assess psychological demands and job control; various measures; scales to determine job strain, reward, and effort at work; and the sum of both effort and reward to calculate the ERI ratio.
- They assessed CHD using medico-administrative databases and an algorithm validated by medical records.
TAKEAWAY:
- After a median follow-up of 18.7 years, there were 571 and 265 incident CHD cases among men and women, respectively.
- Men with either job strain or ERI had a 49% increased risk for CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.09), an estimate comparable to that of several lifestyle risk factors for CHD.
- Male workers facing both job strain and ERI had a 103% increased risk for CHD (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.38-2.97), which is comparable to the increased risk associated with obesity.
- Associations were robust to adjustments for demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, personality, stressful life events, and biomedical and lifestyle factors.
- Among women, results were inconclusive because the CIs were wide enough to encompass both protective and detrimental effects, suggesting more research is needed into the complex interplay of various stressors and women’s heart health.
IN PRACTICE:
“Integrative and interdisciplinary approaches should be used to tackle psychosocial stressors at work,” the authors wrote, adding this involves “going beyond traditional modifiable individual behaviors” and should include “population-based prevention strategies taking into consideration both the individual and their work environment.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec-Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. It was published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
LIMITATIONS:
There was a risk for chance associations due to multiple testing. The exposure may have changed over the course of the study. Using medical databases for CHD event definition may have led to misclassification and underestimation of outcomes. The study population is limited to white-collar workers.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Lavigne-Robichaud was supported by a PhD grant from les Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. See paper for disclosures of other authors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, and those facing both stressors have double the risk compared with colleagues not suffering from these stressors, new research shows. Results in women were inconclusive, suggesting a more complex relationship of these factors, the researchers noted.
METHODOLOGY:
- Evidence suggests psychosocial stressors at work, from job strain related to level of demand and control in workload and decision-making responsibilities, and an effort-reward imbalance (ERI) in areas such as salary, promotion, and job stability, increase CHD risk, with the effect of both types of stressors together possibly being especially harmful.
- The study, which included 6,465 participants in the cardiovascular component of PROQ, a Canadian prospective cohort of white-collar workers initially free of cardiovascular disease, mean age 45 years, estimated that the separate and combined effect of job strain and ERI on CHD incidence.
- Researchers used the Job Content Questionnaire to assess psychological demands and job control; various measures; scales to determine job strain, reward, and effort at work; and the sum of both effort and reward to calculate the ERI ratio.
- They assessed CHD using medico-administrative databases and an algorithm validated by medical records.
TAKEAWAY:
- After a median follow-up of 18.7 years, there were 571 and 265 incident CHD cases among men and women, respectively.
- Men with either job strain or ERI had a 49% increased risk for CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.09), an estimate comparable to that of several lifestyle risk factors for CHD.
- Male workers facing both job strain and ERI had a 103% increased risk for CHD (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.38-2.97), which is comparable to the increased risk associated with obesity.
- Associations were robust to adjustments for demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, personality, stressful life events, and biomedical and lifestyle factors.
- Among women, results were inconclusive because the CIs were wide enough to encompass both protective and detrimental effects, suggesting more research is needed into the complex interplay of various stressors and women’s heart health.
IN PRACTICE:
“Integrative and interdisciplinary approaches should be used to tackle psychosocial stressors at work,” the authors wrote, adding this involves “going beyond traditional modifiable individual behaviors” and should include “population-based prevention strategies taking into consideration both the individual and their work environment.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec-Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. It was published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
LIMITATIONS:
There was a risk for chance associations due to multiple testing. The exposure may have changed over the course of the study. Using medical databases for CHD event definition may have led to misclassification and underestimation of outcomes. The study population is limited to white-collar workers.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Lavigne-Robichaud was supported by a PhD grant from les Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé. See paper for disclosures of other authors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES
New risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women emerging
Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.
During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.
Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that
“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”
In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”
She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
Emerging risk factors
Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.
In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.
“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”
Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.
“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”
Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.
Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.
She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.
“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
Improving health outcomes
Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.
“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”
Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.
“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”
In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.
She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.
“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”
Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.
During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.
Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that
“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”
In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”
She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
Emerging risk factors
Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.
In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.
“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”
Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.
“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”
Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.
Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.
She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.
“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
Improving health outcomes
Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.
“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”
Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.
“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”
In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.
She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.
“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”
Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.
During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.
Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that
“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”
In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”
She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
Emerging risk factors
Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.
In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.
“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”
Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.
“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”
Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.
Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.
She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.
“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
Improving health outcomes
Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.
“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”
Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.
“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”
In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.
She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.
“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”
Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CARDIOACADEMIC 2023
Lead exposure still a global health burden
TOPLINE:
Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.
METHODOLOGY:
- Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
- Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
- Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
- The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
- These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
- The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.
IN PRACTICE:
Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.
LIMITATIONS:
- Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
- Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
- Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.
METHODOLOGY:
- Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
- Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
- Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
- The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
- These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
- The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.
IN PRACTICE:
Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.
LIMITATIONS:
- Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
- Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
- Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.
METHODOLOGY:
- Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
- Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
- Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
- The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
- These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
- The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.
IN PRACTICE:
Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.
LIMITATIONS:
- Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
- Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
- Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How do you prescribe exercise in primary prevention?
To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?
In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,”
“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.
She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”
Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.
“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”
Warning signs
- Dizziness.
- Orthopnea.
- Abnormal heart rate.
- Edema in the lower extremities.
- Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
- Intermittent claudication.
- Heart murmurs.
- Dyspnea.
- Reduced output.
- Fatigue.
Calibrating exercise parameters
The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.
“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.
The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
Evaluate, then recommend
The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.
Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”
Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”
Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?
In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,”
“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.
She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”
Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.
“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”
Warning signs
- Dizziness.
- Orthopnea.
- Abnormal heart rate.
- Edema in the lower extremities.
- Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
- Intermittent claudication.
- Heart murmurs.
- Dyspnea.
- Reduced output.
- Fatigue.
Calibrating exercise parameters
The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.
“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.
The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
Evaluate, then recommend
The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.
Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”
Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”
Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?
In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,”
“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.
She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”
Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.
“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”
Warning signs
- Dizziness.
- Orthopnea.
- Abnormal heart rate.
- Edema in the lower extremities.
- Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
- Intermittent claudication.
- Heart murmurs.
- Dyspnea.
- Reduced output.
- Fatigue.
Calibrating exercise parameters
The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.
“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.
The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
Evaluate, then recommend
The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.
Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”
Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”
Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Obesity-related cardiovascular disease deaths surging
TOPLINE:
In contrast to an overall decline in cardiovascular mortality, obesity-related cardiovascular deaths have risen substantially in the past 2 decades, most prominently among Black women. wrote the authors.
METHODOLOGY:
Data from the U.S. population-level Multiple Cause of Death database were analyzed, including 281,135 deaths in 1999-2020 for which obesity was listed as a contributing factor.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the crude rate of all cardiovascular deaths dropped by 17.6% across all races.
- However, age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality tripled from 2.2/100,000 to 6.6/100,000 from 1999 to 2020, consistent across all racial groups.
- Blacks had the highest age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality (rising from 4.2/100,000 in 1999 to 11.6/100,000 in 2000).
- Ischemic heart disease was the most common cardiovascular cause of death across all races, and hypertensive disease was second.
- Age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality was higher among Blacks (6.7/100,000) than any other racial group, followed by American Indians or Alaskan Natives (3.8/100,000), and lowest among Asian or Pacific Islanders (0.9/100,000).
- The risk of obesity-related cardiovascular disease death rose most rapidly among American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
- Among Blacks, age-adjusted mortality was slightly higher among women than men (6.7/100,000 vs. 6.6/100,000), whereas the reverse was true for all other races (0.6-3.0/100,000 vs. 1.2-6.0/100,000).
- Blacks living in urban settings experienced higher rates of age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality than those living in rural areas (6.8/100,000 vs. 5.9/100,000), whereas the opposite was true for all other racial groups (0.9-3.5/100,000 vs. 2.2-5.4/100,000).
IN PRACTICE:
“There is need for dedicated health strategies aimed at individual communities to better understand and tackle the social determinants of obesity and to design interventions that may alleviate the population burden of both obesity and cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, by Zahra Raisi-Estabragh, MD, PhD, Queen Mary University, London, and colleagues, was published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
LIMITATIONS:
- Database limited to U.S. residents.
- Possible miscoding or diagnostic errors.
- Potential for residual confounding.
- No data on underlying drivers of observed trends.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Raisi-Estabragh has reported receiving funding from the Integrated Academic Training program of the National Institute for Health Research and a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. Another author has reported receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
In contrast to an overall decline in cardiovascular mortality, obesity-related cardiovascular deaths have risen substantially in the past 2 decades, most prominently among Black women. wrote the authors.
METHODOLOGY:
Data from the U.S. population-level Multiple Cause of Death database were analyzed, including 281,135 deaths in 1999-2020 for which obesity was listed as a contributing factor.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the crude rate of all cardiovascular deaths dropped by 17.6% across all races.
- However, age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality tripled from 2.2/100,000 to 6.6/100,000 from 1999 to 2020, consistent across all racial groups.
- Blacks had the highest age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality (rising from 4.2/100,000 in 1999 to 11.6/100,000 in 2000).
- Ischemic heart disease was the most common cardiovascular cause of death across all races, and hypertensive disease was second.
- Age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality was higher among Blacks (6.7/100,000) than any other racial group, followed by American Indians or Alaskan Natives (3.8/100,000), and lowest among Asian or Pacific Islanders (0.9/100,000).
- The risk of obesity-related cardiovascular disease death rose most rapidly among American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
- Among Blacks, age-adjusted mortality was slightly higher among women than men (6.7/100,000 vs. 6.6/100,000), whereas the reverse was true for all other races (0.6-3.0/100,000 vs. 1.2-6.0/100,000).
- Blacks living in urban settings experienced higher rates of age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality than those living in rural areas (6.8/100,000 vs. 5.9/100,000), whereas the opposite was true for all other racial groups (0.9-3.5/100,000 vs. 2.2-5.4/100,000).
IN PRACTICE:
“There is need for dedicated health strategies aimed at individual communities to better understand and tackle the social determinants of obesity and to design interventions that may alleviate the population burden of both obesity and cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, by Zahra Raisi-Estabragh, MD, PhD, Queen Mary University, London, and colleagues, was published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
LIMITATIONS:
- Database limited to U.S. residents.
- Possible miscoding or diagnostic errors.
- Potential for residual confounding.
- No data on underlying drivers of observed trends.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Raisi-Estabragh has reported receiving funding from the Integrated Academic Training program of the National Institute for Health Research and a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. Another author has reported receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
In contrast to an overall decline in cardiovascular mortality, obesity-related cardiovascular deaths have risen substantially in the past 2 decades, most prominently among Black women. wrote the authors.
METHODOLOGY:
Data from the U.S. population-level Multiple Cause of Death database were analyzed, including 281,135 deaths in 1999-2020 for which obesity was listed as a contributing factor.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the crude rate of all cardiovascular deaths dropped by 17.6% across all races.
- However, age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality tripled from 2.2/100,000 to 6.6/100,000 from 1999 to 2020, consistent across all racial groups.
- Blacks had the highest age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality (rising from 4.2/100,000 in 1999 to 11.6/100,000 in 2000).
- Ischemic heart disease was the most common cardiovascular cause of death across all races, and hypertensive disease was second.
- Age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality was higher among Blacks (6.7/100,000) than any other racial group, followed by American Indians or Alaskan Natives (3.8/100,000), and lowest among Asian or Pacific Islanders (0.9/100,000).
- The risk of obesity-related cardiovascular disease death rose most rapidly among American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
- Among Blacks, age-adjusted mortality was slightly higher among women than men (6.7/100,000 vs. 6.6/100,000), whereas the reverse was true for all other races (0.6-3.0/100,000 vs. 1.2-6.0/100,000).
- Blacks living in urban settings experienced higher rates of age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality than those living in rural areas (6.8/100,000 vs. 5.9/100,000), whereas the opposite was true for all other racial groups (0.9-3.5/100,000 vs. 2.2-5.4/100,000).
IN PRACTICE:
“There is need for dedicated health strategies aimed at individual communities to better understand and tackle the social determinants of obesity and to design interventions that may alleviate the population burden of both obesity and cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, by Zahra Raisi-Estabragh, MD, PhD, Queen Mary University, London, and colleagues, was published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
LIMITATIONS:
- Database limited to U.S. residents.
- Possible miscoding or diagnostic errors.
- Potential for residual confounding.
- No data on underlying drivers of observed trends.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Raisi-Estabragh has reported receiving funding from the Integrated Academic Training program of the National Institute for Health Research and a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. Another author has reported receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
Screening finds high rates of CVD in diabetes, COPD patients
AMSTERDAM – , compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.
Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.
“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire
The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.
The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.
The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.
About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.
The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate
The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.
The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.
An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM – , compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.
Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.
“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire
The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.
The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.
The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.
About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.
The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate
The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.
The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.
An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM – , compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.
Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.
“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire
The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.
The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.
The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.
About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.
The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate
The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.
The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.
An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESC CONGRESS 2023
ESC backs SGLT2 inhibitor plus GLP-1 in diabetes with high CVD risk
AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.
said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.
Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.
Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
Different mechanisms mean additive benefits
“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.
“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.
The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.
The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator
Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.
Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.
The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.
Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.
“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).
The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.
“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.
The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.
Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.
said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.
Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.
Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
Different mechanisms mean additive benefits
“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.
“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.
The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.
The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator
Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.
Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.
The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.
Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.
“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).
The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.
“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.
The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.
Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.
said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.
Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.
Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
Different mechanisms mean additive benefits
“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.
“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.
The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.
The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator
Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.
Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.
The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.
Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.
“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).
The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.
“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.
The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.
Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESC CONGRESS 2023
Low-dose colchicine for ASCVD: Your questions answered
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.
who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount
Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?
Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.
I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.
Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.
The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
Inflammatory pathway
Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?
Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.
Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.
The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.
It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
When to start colchicine, and in whom?
Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.
At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?
Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.
In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.
I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.
There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.
Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.
In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.
Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.
In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?
Colchicine safety and contraindications
Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.
One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.
Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.
Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?
Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.
I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.
The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation
Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?
Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.
Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.
Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.
I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.
Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.
Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.
Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.
who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount
Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?
Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.
I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.
Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.
The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
Inflammatory pathway
Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?
Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.
Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.
The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.
It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
When to start colchicine, and in whom?
Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.
At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?
Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.
In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.
I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.
There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.
Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.
In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.
Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.
In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?
Colchicine safety and contraindications
Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.
One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.
Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.
Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?
Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.
I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.
The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation
Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?
Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.
Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.
Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.
I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.
Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.
Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.
Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.
who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount
Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?
Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.
I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.
Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.
The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
Inflammatory pathway
Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?
Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.
Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.
The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.
It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
When to start colchicine, and in whom?
Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.
At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?
Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.
In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.
I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.
There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.
Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.
In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.
Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.
In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?
Colchicine safety and contraindications
Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.
One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.
Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.
Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?
Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.
I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.
The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation
Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?
Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.
Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.
Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.
I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.
Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.
Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.
Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.